McDowell says Govt is not to blame for road deaths

Hotblack Desiato

twenty8 wrote:

How many times have you seen people have 1 or 2 pints in the pub and then drive home??? Did you say anything to them or stop them? Highly unlikely.

1 pint isn't going to put you over the limit. 2 may or may not, it depends on gender, build, tolerance to alcohol, food or empty stomach, speed at which they are drunk, etc. etc.
So do you think that people should turn into busybodies and start harassing people who are probably obeying the law? Do you want to taste their pint to make sure it's not non-alc? Come off it.

A lot of guff is spoken here and elsewhere about how we need zero tolerance on alcohol, lower limits etc. Waste of Garda time. Lowering the limit just turns responsible drivers into criminals. It does nothing against the ones causing the problem - the people who don't give a fig about an 80mg limit so why would they give a fig about a 20 or 50mg one?

The majority of convicted drink-drivers are more than twice over our current limit. Calling for a lower limit when the present one is so widely ignored and so badly enforced is quite simply pointless.

It's like saying that because some people drive at 200km/h and cause accidents, we should reduce the motorway limit to 100km/h. Inconveniences everyone but has no effect on the lawbreakers who are causing the problem. The same thing goes for speed limiters. If you prevent a car from exceeding the speed limit then people will just drive at the speed limit everywhere. Stick a brick on the pedal and let the GPS system or whatever do all the work. How on earth is that going to be safer? The speed limit is a limit not a target. It's up to the driver to determine what a safe speed is, and often that's below the limit.

Most accidents in urban areas occur below the speed limit anyway, lack of observation and failure to obey road markings, signs and lights are the problem here. In rural areas, speed is a factor but so is dangerous overtaking, alcohol and tiredness (3am crashes into walls etc. which make up a huge proportion of our road deaths). Speed is just one part of the picture but we've been brainwashed for so long with the "speed kills" mantra that all other factors are being ignored.

I find it laughable that people are complaining on this thread about county councils because they can't go into blind bends at the speed limit because of potholes etc. FFS it's up to the driver to choose an appropriate speed. On a blind bend, by definition that will be well below the speed limit. The golden rule of road safety is always to drive at a speed which allows you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. Not go flying into a bend hoping that there will be no potholes, or gravel, or wet leaves, or horsesh!t, or pedestrians, or a stopped car...

We all need to stop blaming someone else and take responsibility.

True but the government has a duty to protect citizens from those who refuse to drive legally and safely. They are failing in this duty.

Hobbes

ninja900 wrote:

1 pint isn't going to put you over the limit. 2 may or may not, it depends on gender, build, tolerance to alcohol, food or empty stomach, speed at which they are drunk, etc. etc.

Except that the limit is not there for you to have a pint with the lads.

The limit is there in the event you went out on a bender the night before and still had alcohol in your system but not enough to cause effect.

A zero-tolerance on drink driving imho is a good thing.

gurramok

ninty9er wrote:

putting more gardai on road patrol is pointless.
How many times have you seen gardai blatently ignore people who have broken road traffic laws

I'd wish they start putting gardai on the roads outside the cities.

I've made 2 long return journeys across national roads for the last 2 weekends and did not encounter a single speed check nor a garda on patrol between cities/towns.

First I went to Wexford from Dublin and just yesterday to Galway from Dublin.

Only garda checkpoint i encountered was just inside Galway city on a dual carraigeway checking for tax/Ins, I could have had 10 pints on me and they still wouldn't have caught me which is a damning disgrace of the Gardai.

Most people did obey the speed limits but a minority didn't, the idiots doing multiple overtakes at must of been 150kmph on 100kmph roads were still there, next time i will probably take the train as nothing has been changed by the Gardai to make the roads safer.

Hotblack Desiato

Hobbes wrote:

Except that the limit is not there for you to have a pint with the lads. The limit is there in the event you went out on a bender the night before and still had alcohol in your system but not enough to cause effect.

Err, if it's not causing an effect then what's the problem?
The limit is there for both scenarios. It's there to set a level, below which the increased risk over and above zero alcohol is "acceptable". In the real world it's not about zero risk (if it were, cars would be banned) it's about what level of risk is acceptable.
I feel that the current limit is reasonable so let's concentrate on enforcing it. TBH all the calls for lowering it (same groups who call for blanket lowering of speed limits) smack of a thought-free PC agenda which looks great on paper but in the real world fails to address the actual problem.

Drivers having one pint are NOT the problem, why waste Garda time criminalising them? If you go out with the intention of having one pint but can't stop after one pint then you're an alcoholic and by definition are barred from holding a driving licence anyway!

A zero-tolerance on drink driving imho is a good thing.

All this will do is criminalise responsible drivers while ignoring the lawbreakers. Why on earth can't people have a pint or glass of wine with their Sunday lunch and drive home? Studies show they're less of a risk than tired drivers, or drivers talking on a mobile phone. But it's easier to just demonise them even though they're being more responsible than many other drivers.

ninty9er

ninja900 wrote:

I feel that the current limit is reasonable so let's concentrate on enforcing it. TBH all the calls for lowering it (same groups who call for blanket lowering of speed limits) smack of a thought-free PC agenda which looks great on paper but in the real world fails to address the actual problem.

I would go so far as to say that is the biggest load of crap I've seen on the forum in a while. If the current limits are reasonable why do countries elsewhere have lower limits??? and these are the people who do have a glass of wine with dinner - the Europeans.

If it suits them to drink with dinner I don't see why it shouldn't suit us to have a zero tolerance, pipe up and drink fu<king water or milk with your dinner if you're going to be driving or even if you're not. You may also take note that these cultures have a habit of eating late and long meaning it's unlikely they'll be driving after dinner

On the speed limits - what's the difference between an Autobahn and an Irish Dual Carriageway - the speed limit - do more people get killed php in Germany with higher speed limits - NO- so speed isn't the problem and the "thought free PC Agenda is realising this"

ninja900 wrote:

Drivers having one pint are NOT the problem, why waste Garda time criminalising them? If you go out with the intention of having one pint but can't stop after one pint then you're an alcoholic and by definition are barred from holding a driving licence anyway!


All this will do is criminalise responsible drivers while ignoring the lawbreakers. Why on earth can't people have a pint or glass of wine with their Sunday lunch and drive home? Studies show they're less of a risk than tired drivers, or drivers talking on a mobile phone. But it's easier to just demonise them even though they're being more responsible than many other drivers.

But drivers having 1 glass of wine with dinner are more likely than somebody who hasn't of the same driving aptitude to have a driver error, which is the main killer on our roads!!!

so the message here is pipe up and have water or milk with your dinner (m ilk is better for digestion than water)

Hobbes

ninja900 wrote:

The limit is there for both scenarios.

In the "Drink with the lads" you would be more prone to drink more then you should.

All this will do is criminalise responsible drivers

A responsible driver would never do anything that may potencially endanger themselves or others. That includes not drinking, not speeding, not driving while fatigued, not talking on thier mobile phone.

What is your problem that you *must* have a drink before you drive? Are you incapable of having a bit of craic with friends without drinking?

Hotblack Desiato

ninty9er wrote:

I would go so far as to say that is the biggest load of crap I've seen on the forum in a while.

Thanks I'm sure.

If the current limits are reasonable why do countries elsewhere have lower limits???

Because their politicians got it into their heads that lowering the limit was "a good idea" whether there was evidence to justify this or not?
Can you show that their decisions to go lower than 80mg were entirely on road safety grounds?
I believe that the benefit of going below 80 will be tiny compared to the alternative of actually enforcing the damn law we have already for a change.
We have way too many ill-thought-out and unenforced laws already, why add another.

If it suits them to drink with dinner I don't see why it shouldn't suit us to have a zero tolerance

Huh?

, pipe up and drink fu<king water or milk with your dinner if you're going to be driving or even if you're not.

I'll continue enjoy one drink occasionally with my meal thank you very much.

You may also take note that these cultures have a habit of eating late and long meaning it's unlikely they'll be driving after dinner

On the contrary they have a huge drink-driving problem in France especially in the less densely populated areas (kinda like here). Changing the limit doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the hardened drink drivers, only enforcement works.

On the speed limits - what's the difference between an Autobahn and an Irish Dual Carriageway - the speed limit - do more people get killed php in Germany with higher speed limits - NO- so speed isn't the problem and the "thought free PC Agenda is realising this"

So we agree on speed then. But (like alcohol) it's amazing how people / groups get hung up on a particular limit, a limit is just an arbitrary number chosen to strike a balance between heavy-handedness and leniency. Saying 50mg is the answer to all our drink-driving problems is like saying that blanket 30km/h limit will stop all road deaths.

But drivers having 1 glass of wine with dinner are more likely than somebody who hasn't of the same driving aptitude to have a driver error, which is the main killer on our roads!!!

Again I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Yes small amounts of alcohol do affect driving, but so does having kids in the car, talking on the phone, lighting a cigarette, being tired and many many other factors. I believe that 80mg is a fair limit for a driver who is not impaired in any other way, it makes them less a risk on the road than some eejit jabbering into a handheld phone.

so the message here is pipe up and have water or milk with your dinner (m ilk is better for digestion than water)

Nothing wrong with my digestion Dr. Gillian

Hobbes wrote:

In the "Drink with the lads" you would be more prone to drink more then you should.

True. But either you make a decision to stick to a legal level, or you make a decision to ignore the law and hope to get away with it.
As I said earlier, most drink-drivers are more than twice over our current limit, they made a deliberate decision to go on the lash and have quite a few drinks and then drive home. If you lower the limit these guys will just laugh, they don't care about any limit.

A responsible driver would never do anything that may potencially endanger themselves or others. That includes not drinking, not speeding, not driving while fatigued, not talking on thier mobile phone.

If you can find a single driver in Ireland who never does any of these things then you'd be lucky.
Law enforcement should be carried out according to priorities. How many accidents are caused by drivers between 50 and 79 mg? How many of those accidents were actually caused by drink, after all sober people crash all the time.

What is your problem that you *must* have a drink before you drive? Are you incapable of having a bit of craic with friends without drinking?

Who said anything about *must* have a drink?

Hobbes

ninja900 wrote:

Who said anything about *must* have a drink?

You have. "I'll continue enjoy one drink occasionally with my meal thank you very much."

Clearly you have an issue with someone stopping you from drinking with a meal then actually just stop drinking and driving.

If you can find a single driver in Ireland who never does any of these things then you'd be lucky.

I haven't. I am sure there are others here who haven't either.

Hotblack Desiato

Hobbes wrote:

You have. "I'll continue enjoy one drink occasionally with my meal thank you very much."
Clearly you have an issue with someone stopping you from drinking with a meal then actually just stop drinking and driving.

Well after 3 or 4 posts I thought it would be obvious, yes, yes I do have a problem with people calling for a lower drink-drive limit when it's entirely bleeding obvious that the problem in this country isn't the limit, it's lack of enforcement.

Nowhere have I said that I 'must' have a drink, I choose to do so (very occasionally when driving, I should add, and always below the limit) and I want to continue to be able to exercise that choice occasionally as I believe it to be reasonable.

Saying that that means I 'must' have a drink is bordering on abuse imo and I ask you to withdraw any such inference.

Hobbes

The only abuse is someone who drinks and drives and thinks its perfectly safe to do so.

MrPudding

Did I not read somewhere that less than 1% of people involved in incidents have a blood alcohol level of less than the current badly enforced limit?

TBH you would probably save more lives by arresting people that are driving with less than 6 hours sleep he night before.

MrP

mike65

Hobbes let it go please whatever your views ninja900 is'nt breaking any law.

Fifth Gear did an exellent test comparing a driver who had 3 pints and a fatigued driver (up 18 hours) at night on a private track, the fatigued driver was by far the more dangerous over the duration of the test.

Mike.

Stky10

ninty9er wrote:

putting more gardai on road patrol is pointless.
How many times have you seen gardai blatently ignore people who have broken road traffic laws

Friend of mine told me a story bout a year and a half ago. His brother had his car parked outside his mothers house which is by a main road, but its on a long straight stretch of road, and there is a clear space in front of the house that means cars parked outside it are well off the road.

Anyway, one midweek night about 11pm they hear a big bang outside, go out and the local super's wife had ploughed straight into it, and it had been pushed forward into the car parked in front of it in your classic accordian style. She gets out and is talking away fine but is obviously completely mullered. Cops are called and come along and fiddle about for a while, then another cop car comes along, she gets in, and is taken home.

They ask why she wasn't bagged and they were told she wasn't drunk and wasn't required anymore. Nothing more ever happened with it.

Also, a cousin of mine has gotten out of several speeding tickets/fines by knowing people, who talk to one guard, who'll phone up a guard in the station responsible, and it all gets dropped.

That and the fact that there are no speed/drink checkpoints on a saturday night which is the most dangerous time to be on the roads from a deaths point of view, and you have the reason we're in the poo to the extent we are.

Hobbes

mike65 wrote:

Hobbes let it go please whatever your views ninja900 is'nt breaking any law.

Let what go? I didn't say he was breaking any laws. What I did say was the law was set to that level not as an intention to let you have a free pint down at the local but in the event you had been drinking the day before.

The fact that some people see it as a reason to still be allowed drink and drive is a good reason to change it imho.

Fifth Gear did an exellent test comparing a driver who had 3 pints and a fatigued driver (up 18 hours) at night on a private track, the fatigued driver was by far the more dangerous over the duration of the test.

Just because the driver was more dangerous doesn't make drink driving any less dangerous.