Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

golfball37

blackwhite wrote: »

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!

Ah- so now we know where the million extra tests came from!!

feargale

Bobtheman wrote: »

I realise we have to have laws on this but to be honest I wonder if the checkpoints in the morning should be done way with ? Or perhaps less checkpoints overall?

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.

Volvo is going to solve it. After one pint the car will come to a halt after one mile. Two pints and you get two miles. Three pints, three miles and then the wheels come off the car. Their left-hand drive cars will do it by metric.

Ash.J.Williams

its definitely causing a change, just today a colleague said he was planning on going out tonight until he got a text his son has a match at 9.30am in the morning, night out cancelled due to drink driving laws!

TheChizler

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

its definitely causing a change, just today a colleague said he was planning on going out tonight until he got a text his son has a match at 9.30am in the morning, night out cancelled due to drink driving laws!

Or the inability to stop after two or three! Which is a fine number for a night out, according to the people saying you should be allowed to drive home after that many

Edgware

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

If you got a puncture you would have as long a delay. Good preparation includes leaving in ample time to cover such eventualities
There have been many accidents in morning time where alcohol was factor either through lack of sleep, late night drinking etc. Accidents can happen but we should try and eliminate contributory factors

AndrewJRenko

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

its definitely causing a change, just today a colleague said he was planning on going out tonight until he got a text his son has a match at 9.30am in the morning, night out cancelled due to drink driving laws!

Aren't matches usually scheduled a few days in advance? What kind of night out was he planning? Was it a 3am or 4am night, or a few pints in the local?


Would he be willing to risk his family's safety if there was no drink driving laws in place? But good to hear that it's causing a change anyway.

Hoboo

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Aren't matches usually scheduled a few days in advance? What kind of night out was he planning? Was it a 3am or 4am night, or a few pints in the local?


Would he be willing to risk his family's safety if there was no drink driving laws in place? But good to hear that it's causing a change anyway.

Great point. Only reason he's not going on the batter is due to the law, not because he has a load of precious cargo to drive around the next morning. Exactly why we need these laws, the country is full of retards.

Mrcaramelchoc

Sonics2k wrote: »

IMO there should be more checkpoints until all the selfish, irresponsible drunk drivers are locked up.

I've lost too many friends over the years as the result of drunk drivers, so to hell with anyone who makes up their phoney excuse.

Really?how many?
you must have millions of friends,( are they Facebook friends?that would explain a lot)or be living in a town that only sells alcohol and cars or your slightly exaggerating perhaps?

Ash.J.Williams

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

its definitely causing a change, just today a colleague said he was planning on going out tonight until he got a text his son has a match at 9.30am in the morning, night out cancelled due to drink driving laws!

I think people are getting overly afraid of it too by the sounds of it. He would have been well able to have a decent few pints and still be grand to drive in the morning.

A group of us were out for a fair few pints one night during the week and we all drove into work the next morning. We certainly wouldn’t have liked to face the bag but the “next morning” was not factored into the plans of the night in the least, yeah it was mentioned and cursed but that was it.

khaldrogo

Steve wrote:

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

Google maps?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

Really?how many?
you must have millions of friends,( are they Facebook friends?that would explain a lot)or be living in a town that only sells alcohol and cars or your slightly exaggerating perhaps?

A few people have really taken issue with Sonic’s post. Even one friend is too many. And I think he replied later in the thread that it was more than one. Why is that hard to believe?

mzungu

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I think people are getting overly afraid of it too by the sounds of it. He would have been well able to have a decent few pints and still be grand to drive in the morning.

He would not. That's a highly irresponsible attitude to have. Not to mention you are advocating for illegal behaviour on a public forum.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

A group of us were out for a fair few pints one night during the week and we all drove into work the next morning. We certainly wouldn’t have liked to face the bag but the “next morning” was not factored into the plans of the night in the least, yeah it was mentioned and cursed but that was it.

You most likely were over the limit. If you were confident of passing then it wouldn't matter how many checkpoints there were. Going purely on what you have posted, neither you, or your friends are responsible enough to be road users.

chrissb8

Drink driving is at an all time low no matter what any newspaper would have you believe. So no, the OP stupid suggestion (and sorry to be harsh but it's a very stupid thing to basically say "what's the harm, eh? couple of drinks never hurt anyone!") is selfish and draconian . It does hurt people, alot of people. That's why things are as they are now and should continue to stay as so.

Potential-Monke

I did it a few times when I was younger, and thankfully nothing happened, but thinking back now, I was an absolute dope for doing it. Yeah, I felt fine while doing it, and I didn't crash (but did spin out on a wet roundabout once, luckily no one was around). Over the years, and then becoming a Garda for a while, showed me the real effect of drink driving, and I'm all for zero tolerance. It's zero tolerance on drugs, why not drink? Like, if I have a smoke tonight, that will show in my blood for up to 2 months, and I'll be prosecuted regardless of when I actually had the smoke. But as long as you're below a certain limit with drink, it's ok to drive. Madness.

Anyone still thinking that driving with drink in you, or still affecting you from the night before, is a backwards twat that only cares about their own enjoyment over the lives of others. And no apologies if I've insulted someone, but you have no right to be insulted if you continue to drive while having alcohol in your system. What, the pubs may close? Oh no! Where will everyone go then! The less emphasis we put on drink, and the more we lean towards advice that it's not actually good for you (queue the people saying wine is healthy/beneficial) and is literally toxic, the better.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

He would not. That's a highly irresponsible attitude to have. Not to mention you are advocating for illegal behaviour on a public forum.

Yes you can have a reasonable number of pints and still be under the limit in the morning. Just picking a random example you drink 7 pints between 8pm and 12pm and you would be under the limit by 9:30am, I think you could probably even have a little more and be under but 6 or 7 should not be an issue.

mzungu wrote: »

You most likely were over the limit. If you were confident of passing then it wouldn't matter how many checkpoints there were. Going purely on what you have posted, neither you, or your friends are responsible enough to be road users.

I think it was quite clear from what I said that I woundnt be at all confident of passing but I personally felt absolute perfect to drive (that said I’d be borderline not crazy over or anything). Trust me I’ve driven the morning after 100’s and 100’s of times there were periods I was out 3 times a week and driving the next morning each time and boy was there times I didn’t feel right to drive so when I’m fine I know it (over the last 15 years I might add and most of the time there was no such thing as morning bagging or even the suggestion of being over the limit the next day).

I personally think it’s a disgrace though that I have to worry about meeting guards on my drive to work because I choose to have a night out. Morning bagging really is a joke and everyone I know is of the same opinion across a wide enough array of people and age groups. Like many things what people say on boards is very different to the feeling in general.

Potential-Monke

Ah the good ole 'I know my limits' argument...

amcalester

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I personally think it’s a disgrace though that I have to worry about meeting guards on my drive to work because I choose to have a night out. Morning bagging really is a joke.

You only have to worry if you’re over the limit.

I really really really hope you get put off the road some day.

mzungu

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Yes you can have a reasonable number of pints and still be under the limit in the morning. Just picking a random example you drink 7 pints between 8pm and 12pm and you would be under the limit by 9:30am, I think you could probably even have a little more and be under but 6 or 7 should not be an issue.

Seven pints would take at least 14 hours to exit the system. That's not counting the driver feeling groggy after the nights activities. It is most certainly a big issue.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I think it was quite clear from what I said that I woundnt be at all confident of passing but I personally felt absolute perfect to drive (that said I’d be borderline not crazy over or anything). Trust me I’ve driven the morning after 100’s and 100’s of times there were periods I was out 3 times a week and driving the next morning each time and boy was there times I didn’t feel right to drive so when I’m fine I know it (over the last 15 years I might add and most of the time there was no such thing as morning bagging or even the suggestion of being over the limit the next day).

You are not the best judge of how safe you were (and are) to drive. People always overestimate their abilities. Either out of ignorance or selfishness. Morning bagging came in because research showed drivers were over the limit the following morning and this put the public in danger.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I personally think it’s a disgrace though that I have to worry about meeting guards on my drive to work because I choose to have a night out. Morning bagging really is a joke and everyone I know is of the same opinion across a wide enough array of people and age groups. Like many things what people say on boards is very different to the feeling in general.

Well everybody I know thinks it's a good idea to have more checkpoints and they agree with harsher penalties. Morning bagging saves lives and takes dangerous elements off the roads. Shane Ross has done well here.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

Seven pints would take at least 14 hours to exit the system. That's not counting the driver feeling groggy after the nights activities. It is most certainly a big issue.

Going by the hour per unit which I personally think is erring on the side of caution you are ok in my example. 8pm to 8am is 12 hours and one pint is unlikely to but the average male over the limit so you are most likely ok to drive at 8am and the an extra 1.5 hours meaning the drink would likely be almost completely gone for the system if not very close to it.

Feeling groggy isn’t an offense unless they start testing people for tiredness. Also finishing up at 12pm isn’t exactly going to leave you very groggy. Someone having a bad nights sleep would be far more groggy in the morning than someone who gets into bed at 1pm and has a good nights sleep after a few scoops.

mzungu wrote: »

You are not the best judge of how safe you were (and are) to drive. People always overestimate their abilities. Either out of ignorance or selfishness. Morning bagging came in because research showed drivers were over the limit the following morning and this put the public in danger.

Of course you can make a judgment on your condition in the morning.

mzungu wrote: »

Well everybody I know thinks it's a good idea to have more checkpoints and they agree with harsher penalties. Morning bagging saves lives and takes dangerous elements off the roads. Shane Ross has done well here.

Well as I said in my experience everyone I know is giving out about it, make it’s a rural vs city divine as a lot of these things are. From 18 year olds to 80 year olds, family, friend and work colleagues who I’m friends with all are giving out stink about both morning bagging and the reduction in the limit.

jjpep

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Going by the hour per unit which I personally think is erring on the side of caution you are ok in my example. 8pm to 8am is 12 hours and one pint is unlikely to but the average male over the limit so you are most likely ok to drive at 8am and the an extra 1.5 hours meaning the drink would likely be almost completely gone for the system if not very close to it.

Feeling groggy isn’t an offense unless they start testing people for tiredness. Also finishing up at 12pm isn’t exactly going to leave you very groggy. Someone having a bad nights sleep would be far more groggy in the morning than someone who gets into bed at 1pm and has a good nights sleep after a few scoops.



Of course you can make a judgment on your condition in the morning.



Well as I said in my experience everyone I know is giving out about it, make it’s a rural vs city divine as a lot of these things are. From 18 year olds to 80 year olds, family, friend and work colleagues who I’m friends with all are giving out stink about both morning bagging and the reduction in the limit.

People like you make the roads dangerous for everyone else. You're either too stubborn or too stupid to realise though and that's the actual problem. Chances are you'll get through life without killing or maiming someone on the road but won't be due to what you think is your good judgement, it will be purely down to luck. You are somebody's worse day.

jjpep

jjpep wrote: »

People like you make the roads dangerous for everyone else. You're either too stubborn or too stupid to realise though and that's the actual problem. Chances are you'll get through life without killing or maiming someone on the road but won't be due to what you think is your good judgement, it will be purely down to luck. You are somebody's worse day.

Nonsense of the highest order. You like many are comparing a lad driving home after 15 pints and people who are borderline or a bit over a very draconian limit. There is no comparison.

I’m as against drunk drivers as much as anyone they are a massive danger on the roads and cause the problem. All this bull with really strict limits and interfering in people going about their business after a night out will make zero difference to drunk drivers and zero difference to road safety.

amcalester

I’d imagine the people giving out stink are those that are in the habit of drink driving, whether that be the night of or the morning after, so I see no reason why their complaints should be entertained.

**** ‘em.

Dravokivich

It's not draconian. Its measured and known how much it has the potential to impede comprehension.

Dravokivich

It's not draconian. Its measured and known how much it has the potential to impede comprehension.

mzungu

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Going by the hour per unit which I personally think is erring on the side of caution you are ok in my example. 8pm to 8am is 12 hours and one pint is unlikely to but the average male over the limit so you are most likely ok to drive at 8am and the an extra 1.5 hours meaning the drink would likely be almost completely gone for the system if not very close to it.

A unit is half a pint. Seven pints and you are looking at 14 hours. But that's neither here nor there. One shouldn't be trying to work out mathematically how much they can get away with. The responsible thing to do is abstain from drink altogether.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Feeling groggy isn’t an offense unless they start testing people for tiredness. Also finishing up at 12pm isn’t exactly going to leave you very groggy. Someone having a bad nights sleep would be far more groggy in the morning than someone who gets into bed at 1pm and has a good nights sleep after a few scoops.

But it is highly irresponsible and feeds into taking responsibility and manning up to the situation. Somebody that had a bad nights sleep will not be feeling the effects of a potent depressive drug they ingested the night before. If somebody is not fit to drive after a bad nights sleep, then they shouldn't.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Of course you can make a judgment on your condition in the morning.

Not an objective one.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Well as I said in my experience everyone I know is giving out about it, make it’s a rural vs city divine as a lot of these things are. From 18 year olds to 80 year olds, family, friend and work colleagues who I’m friends with all are giving out stink about both morning bagging and the reduction in the limit.

I guess your family and friends need a reality check. They don't get to risk the lives of others because they want to have a few jars.

mzungu

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Nonsense of the highest order. You like many are comparing a lad driving home after 15 pints and people who are borderline or a bit over a very draconian limit. There is no comparison.

I’m as against drunk drivers as much as anyone they are a massive danger on the roads and cause the problem. All this bull with really strict limits and interfering in people going about their business after a night out will make zero difference to drunk drivers and zero difference to road safety.

You are a drunk driver. All the mental gymnastics in the world won't change that.

amcalester

This could be you Nox.

A man whose dangerous driving due to inattention and tiredness caused the death of an elderly woman has been jailed for 14 months.

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/man-who-was-over-drink-driving-limit-and-had-a-severe-lack-of-sleep-jailed-over-death-of-elderly-mother-in-crash-37964696.html

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

A unit is half a pint. Seven pints and you are looking at 14 hours. But that's neither here nor there. One shouldn't be trying to work out mathematically how much they can get away with. The responsible thing to do is abstain from drink altogether.

I know it’s a unit an hour but the limit isn’t zero so 12 hours would get you down to about the limit which I thought was quite clear. Also as I said earlier in the thread I’ve heard of and seen people pass the morning test where they in no way should have using these calculations.

Why shouldn’t you be able to work our mathematically when you are ok to drive? It’s juat as reasonable as not drinking. Why should a person not be able to enjoy their night out if they are under the limit in the morning? This sort of nonsense really annoys me.

mzungu wrote: »

You are a drunk driver. All the mental gymnastics in the world won't change that.

No I’m not, the limit does not equal drunk and even a certain amount over the limit isn’t drunk. It’s impossible to have a conversation on a topic when people make up “facts”.

amcalester wrote: »

This could be you Nox.



https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/man-who-was-over-drink-driving-limit-and-had-a-severe-lack-of-sleep-jailed-over-death-of-elderly-mother-in-crash-37964696.html

It could be plenty of people and with no drink taken at all. I’ve never felt as much a danger on the roads as driving when very tired and absolutely zero drink involved, the thing is people drive all the time when wrecked and it will never be something that can be stopped. Saying things like “well then they shouldn’t drive” just doesn’t cut it, how is a person say with a new born getting almost no sleep supposed to get to work everyday if they can’t drive?

mzungu

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I know it’s a unit an hour but the limit isn’t zero so 12 hours would get you down to about the limit which I thought was quite clear.

Why shouldn’t you be able to work our mathematically when you are ok to drive? It’s juat as reasonable as not drinking. Why should a person not be able to enjoy their night out if they are under the limit in the morning? This sort of nonsense really annoys me.

It's not. Trying to work out how much you can get away with is irresponsible and cute-hoorism. Abstaining from drink for the night shows responsibility.

You can enjoy a night out without drinking.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

No I’m not, the limit does not equal drunk and even a certain amount over the limit isn’t drunk. It’s impossible to have a conversation on a topic when people make up “facts”.

You were playing whataboutery. You may not wish to view yourself in the same league as drunk drivers but you are. You are all over the legal limit, the only thing that differs is the amount. In both cases a conscious choice was made to give two fingers to the rules. Both parties display the same mindset that needs to be eradicated from society.

amcalester

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I know it’s a unit an hour but the limit isn’t zero so 12 hours would get you down to about the limit which I thought was quite clear. Also as I said earlier in the thread I’ve heard of and seen people pass the morning test where they in no way should have using these calculations.

Why shouldn’t you be able to work our mathematically when you are ok to drive? It’s juat as reasonable as not drinking. Why should a person not be able to enjoy their night out if they are under the limit in the morning? This sort of nonsense really annoys me.



No I’m not, the limit does not equal drunk and even a certain amount over the limit isn’t drunk. It’s impossible to have a conversation on a topic when people make up “facts”.

Over the limit = too drunk to drive.

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

It could be plenty of people and with no drink taken at all. I’ve never felt as much a danger on the roads as driving when very tired and absolutely zero drink involved, the thing is people drive all the time when wrecked and it will never be something that can be stopped. Saying things like “well then they shouldn’t drive” just doesn’t cut it, how is a person say with a new born getting almost no sleep supposed to get to work everyday if they can’t drive?

How you feel is irrelevant, every time you drink drive you’re a danger to others on the road. That’s a fact. It doesn’t matter how you feel.

Potential-Monke

I'd really like to set something up with you, to get a Garda to test you every morning you go to drive after a night out, and in your opinion you're fine. I think you'd find out science says you're not.

Potential-Monke

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I'd really like to set something up with you, to get a Garda to test you every morning you go to drive after a night out, and in your opinion you're fine. I think you'd find out science says you're not.

I never said ok meant under the limit, it’s quite difficult when we have such a low limit. I strongly disagree with arguments saying your not fit to drive with small amounts of drink your system that’s the main issue. I think the limit should be set to allow the average man have around 3 pints. A limit like this would mean you are very safe to have a decent night out and be under the next morning also, but won’t allow the actual dangers on the road which is the fella driving home after 12 pints or the lad drinking till 5am and getting up for work at 7am and driving etc.

Look everyone of us got up and drove after massive nights out without a second thought up until the morning after rules got invented a few years ago and there was no issues.

dudara

I honestly can’t believe that there any arguments trying to justify alcohol & driving.

This fits exactly into the “What practice/beliefs make you instantly lose respect for someone?” thread as far as I’m concerned.

Emiliano Many Cardinal

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I strongly disagree with arguments saying your not fit to drive with small amounts of drink your system that’s the main issue.

You mean many many years of research & scientific proof ?
You just disagree with the experts?

amcalester

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I never said ok meant under the limit, it’s quite difficult when we have such a low limit. I strongly disagree with arguments saying your not fit to drive with small amounts of drink your system that’s the main issue. I think the limit should be set to allow the average man have around 3 pints. A limit like this would mean you are very safe to have a decent night out and be under the next morning also, but won’t allow the actual dangers on the road which is the fella driving home after 12 pints or the lad drinking till 5am and getting up for work at 7am and driving etc.

Look everyone of us got up and drove after massive nights out without a second thought up until the morning after rules got invented a few years ago and there was no issues.

Ignorance of an issue =!= absence of an issue

kirving

There's certainly a difference between driving after a drink, and driving drunk.

It's also worth pointing out that the limit for Novice and Professional drivers (0.02%) is half that allowed by the FAA (0.04%) to fly a 747.

The limit has been lowered to such an extent that certain drivers can fail with a negligible amount of alcohol in their system, and so everyone loses faith in it after a while.

One it gets to the stage that a reasonable person can envisage themselves as being arrested for drink driving, then the huge deterrent of the social stigma associated with being arrested falls away.

Obviously the threat of being caught is there still, but it's very unlikely in most of the country, and people don't expect to be caught for the most part.

My view on it is a more reasonable limit, but far far more enforcement (for all types not of bad driving) is a better way to improve compliance.

mzungu wrote: »

You are all over the legal limit, the only thing that differs is the amount. In both cases a conscious choice was made to give two fingers to the rules. Both parties display the same mindset that needs to be eradicated from society.

Have you ever driven 51kph in a 50kph zone? If you did, even once, you made a conscious choice to give 2 fingers to the rules.
That's the kind of mindset we need to eradicate from society.

See how absolutely ridiculous that sounds?

amcalester

bubblypop wrote: »

You mean many many years of research & scientific proof ?
You just disagree with the experts?

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

It’s impossible to have a conversation on a topic when people make up “facts”.

Galwayguy35

The easiest thing to do is if you know you are going to be up early and on the road the next day don't bother with a feed of pints.

People can try to convince themselves they will be fine next morning but there's no way a person won't feel groggy after a night on the beer.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

You mean many many years of research & scientific proof ?
You just disagree with the experts?

When it comes to things like drink driving I don’t believe the research and studies are done in anyway fairly. They find the results that they have to find.

Just look at the nonsense you see on these programs in tv where they try to “test” the effect of alcohol. They get a few people to drive around a course and then give them a drink, test them again, another drink test them again etc. The tests results are a joke and they obviously pay the drivers to drive crap after even the one drink just to get the results that they have to as if they found that “oh look 2 or 3 pints actually makes feck all difference” there would be war in the media.

Marcus Rashford

There is a lot of misinformation and hyperbole.

The deaths seem to occur when some 23 year old with 8 pints and 5 jaegerbombs on him flips a Honda Civic on the N17 just outside Ballygobackwards.

How many people have died as a result of someone with three pints on them driving from Ranelagh to Dundrum?

And who’s a better and safer driver, my 83 year old aunt or me with four pints on me?

Drink driving is fine most of the time; there, I’ve said it.

amcalester

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

When it comes to things like drink driving I don’t believe the research and studies are done in anyway fairly. They find the results that they have to find.

Then why isn’t the multi billion dollar drinks industry publishing their own studies countering these claims?

I can’t believe your agreement is that the scientists are wrong, we’re straying into anti-vax levels of stupidity here.

mzungu

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Have you ever driven 51kph in a 50kph zone? If you did, even once, you made a conscious choice to give 2 fingers to the rules.
That's the kind of mindset we need to eradicate from society.

See how absolutely ridiculous that sounds?

Trying to get people to abide by the rules is ridiculous? Two very different situations. The poster drives regularly over the limit and believes the rules are for everybody else. A few posts above they say that the research into drink driving is not credible.

So yes, we do need to eradicate these outdated notions.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

Trying to get people to abide by the rules is ridiculous? Two very different situations. The poster drives regularly over the limit and believes the rules are for everybody else. A few posts above they say that the research into drink driving is not credible.

So yes, we do need to eradicate these outdated notions.

I never said I drive regularly over the limit. I’m probably borderline at times the next day but certainly not miles over the limit by any means.

mzungu

Stetson Witty Poppycock wrote: »

I never said I drive regularly over the limit. I’m probably borderline at times the next day but certainly not miles over the limit by any means.

A few pages back you mentioned your past exploits....

Stetson Witty Poppycock wrote:

Trust me I’ve driven the morning after 100’s and 100’s of times there were periods I was out 3 times a week and driving the next morning each time and boy was there times I didn’t feel right to drive

and your current ones....

Stetson Witty Poppycock wrote:

A group of us were out for a fair few pints one night during the week and we all drove into work the next morning. We certainly wouldn’t have liked to face the bag but the “next morning” was not factored into the plans of the night in the least, yeah it was mentioned and cursed but that was it.

To this day you still drive the morning after, even when you would be worried about meeting a checkpoint the morning after.

You regularly drive over the limit. You have outlined your behaviour pattern regarding drink driving. How far over the limit you are matters not. You are still over the limit.

kirving

mzungu wrote: »

Trying to get people to abide by the rules is ridiculous?

That's not what I wrote. It's ridiculous that you think someone who is borderline with respect to a arbitraryly low limit, poses the same risk as the guy who has 8 pints.

mzungu wrote: »

How far over the limit you are matters not.

Of course it matters. The low limit catches people who never had any intention of being caught. The guy who has 8 pints and kills all his friends is going to drive drunk regardless of any law.

And for the record, I don't know anyone who has been caught myself.

mzungu wrote: »

Two very different situations.

No they're not, at all. Both excessive speed and blood alcohol content are proportional to the chance of crashing.

But you don't want to admit that because almost everyone (yourself and myself included) breaks the speed limit daily, even accidentally, with no consequences.

mzungu wrote: »

The poster drives regularly over the limit and believes the rules are for everybody else. A few posts above they say that the research into drink driving is not credible.

mzungu

Kevin Irving wrote: »

That's not what I wrote. It's ridiculous that you think someone who is borderline with respect to a arbitraryly low limit, poses the same risk as the guy who has 8 pints.

They are still irresponsible and shouldn't be on the road. I suppose you could view it as a spectrum. Some will be drunker than others. But it's still all part of the one problem. I also never stated that they posed the same risk, but they do all display the same behavioural traits. One feeds into the other.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Of course it matters. The low limit catches people who never had any intention of being caught. The guy who has 8 pints and kills all his friends is going to drive drunk regardless of any law.

Nobody has any intention of getting caught, though. From the guy bagged the morning after that had five pints the night before, to the guy caught at 4am with 20 on board. Most people are well aware that there is a risk of being over the limit the morning after, if they make the choice to throw caution to the wind, they have only themselves to blame. The low limit catches those that are still over the legal limit. As above, its a spectrum.

If somebody is killed by a driver with ten on board at 2am, or by a groggy barely over the limit driver the morning after. Do you think that would lessen the pain of the loved ones of the deceased? Ditto if somebody ends up paralysed? At that point, then it doesn't matter what the excuses are that the lad bagged the morning after comes up with. The damage is done.

Kevin Irving wrote: »

No they're not, at all. Both excessive speed and blood alcohol content are proportional to the chance of crashing.

But you don't want to admit that because almost everyone (yourself and myself included) breaks the speed limit daily, even accidentally, with no consequences.

That's whataboutery, though. Because people speed, we should let people drink and drive is the crux of what you're implying above. Now the bolded part. People that speed are given penalty points. Licences can be lost etc. Investigations into accidents also factor it in, and will apportion blame where necessary. Speeding does have consequences.

Yes, both cause accidents. But one is knowingly taking a potent drug that dulls the senses before getting behind the wheel of a deadly weapon. With the other, at least the driver is sober and can adjust speed back down to the limit if they have inadvertently strayed over.

Dravokivich

Forget about nox, he's mentioned before that his car struggles if he's driving it slow.

amcalester

Dravokivich wrote: »

Forget about nox, he's mentioned before that his car struggles if he's driving it slow.

But it’s a high powered car, sure it has to be driven fast the morning after the night before.

alan partridge aha

The only solution is buy the device, test in morning and if = or under we can give the 2 fingers to the boys.

AndrewJRenko

alan partridge aha wrote: »

The only solution is buy the device, test in morning and if = or under we can give the 2 fingers to the boys.

Or the other solution is to not go out on a mad tear if you're driving next morning How hard is that?