L drivers are scapegoated in new drink driving law.

E92

Apologies if this has been covered already but why are only learners and those who passed the test recently going to have a limit of 20 mg/l blood alcohol level:mad:? The "more experienced" will have the limit reduced to 50 mg/l.

The government has picked a soft target for maximum political capital yet again. People have to lear to drive at some stage like, you can't just become "experienced" overnight like:(:rolleyes:.(though how some people became "experienced" is beyond me, the standard of driving by and large is shocking in this country)

Why can't EVERYONE be limited to 20 mg/l, given that that's what the safest countries in the world do and if they're as bothered about people drink driving then how can they justify something that is completely unjustifiable?

I think someone should take the Government to court over discriminating one particular bunch of people. Alcohol is either dangerous or it's not, it's not 2.5 times less dangerous for some people:(.

Story here.

ballooba

Does it really make a difference? Do you actually want to drink and drive?

--amadeus--

As you said yourself you don't become experienced overnight. I don't condone drinking and driving under any circumstances but a stricter limit on inexperienced drivers makes sense from a safety perspective. It's a proven fact that provisional licence holders are more likely to be at fault in an accident. By giving them a stricter set of limits you hopefully prevent them from drinking at all as they know that even one drink could potentially put them over the limit.

An older, more experienced, driver will be a safer driver. The (very slightly) higher limit recognizes that they need more alcohol to cause thier driving to degenerate to a dangerous level. Less experienced drivers are closer to being dangerous in the first place and therefore need less alcohol to be a risk to themselves and to others.

And the point of a Learners Permit (or Provisional Licence) is to allow you to learn to drive. You won't be learning much if you've had a couple of pints!

javaboy

The limit matters very little anyway. I read something about one of the Irish coroner's saying that they see very few road deaths with blood alcohol just over the limit or even twice the limit. They said that most of the people who are over are well over. Maybe 4 or 5 times the limit.

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that it's ok to drink up to a much higher limit, I'm saying that it's not lowering the limit that's required, but more enforcment.

They can set a 0mg limit and call it zero tolerance which would get great publicity for a while but if they're not catching people, it doesn't matter what the limit is.

ballooba

There should be a blanket 0.2 limit. Only because nobody should be drinking ANYTHING regardless of their experience levels. The above is rubbish that experienced drivers are less affected by alcohol. Do our bodies change as we become more experienced at driving?

craichoe

javaboy wrote: »

The limit matters very little anyway. I read something about one of the Irish coroner's saying that they see very few road deaths with blood alcohol just over the limit or even twice the limit. They said that most of the people who are over are well over. Maybe 4 or 5 times the limit.

Don't get me wrong I'm not suggesting that it's ok to drink up to a much higher limit, I'm saying that it's not lowering the limit that's required, but more enforcment.

They can set a 0mg limit and call it zero tolerance which would get great publicity for a while but if they're not catching people, it doesn't matter what the limit is.

Can't have no limit, what if you had trace amounts on your breath from mouthwash etc.

javaboy

craichoe wrote: »

Can't have no limit, what if you had trace amounts on your breath from mouthwash etc.

Wee test would get you off the hook I imagine. As long as you don't swallow Listerine. (in which case you are consuming alcohol

I know a 0mg limit is unworkable but I was making the point that if the 80mg/50mg limit was enforced it would probably be enough.

Jar_421

--amadeus-- wrote: »

An older, more experienced, driver will be a safer driver.

That statement is so wrong its not even funny. older more experienced drivers, not all but a few, will tend to take more chances while driving, i.e. shooting through changing lights at the last second, overtaking when amazingly inappropriate to do so etc, as they will have that idea in their head of" well i've been doing this for years if anything happens I can handle it",
couple this with a drink or 2 and they will take even more chances.

Experience counts for nothing when any drink is involved. it should be the same for everyone regardless of how long they have been driving.

bonkey

javaboy wrote: »

The limit matters very little anyway.

With regards to fatalaties, perhaps. With regards to accidents in general, I wouldn't be so certain. I don't know, mind. I just wouldn't be certain.

I'm saying that it's not lowering the limit that's required, but more enforcment.

TBH, this can be said of pretty-much every aspect of Irish driving law. There is no point in changing one unenforced law for another unenforced law as an attempt to fix the underlying problem....but this seems to be quite typical of the Irish approach.

They can set a 0mg limit and call it zero tolerance which would get great publicity for a while but if they're not catching people, it doesn't matter what the limit is.

Agreed.

The Swiss introduced an interesting twist to the whole limits thing a while back.

The legal limit here is .05 and this is reasonably enforced.

But wait (as they on the Shopping Channel), there's more.

If you are involved in an accident, you have a mandatory BAC-check. If you're tested at over 0.03, then your insurance company will seek redress for a percentage of any payout they have to make as a result of your involvement. This is legally enforced, to the point that you are allowed subsistance living costs* until you have paid them back this redress. IIRC, the minimum they will look for is 30% of any payout.

I'm sure someone will no doubt posting about how this is a typical "too much control" Swiss solution, but you know what....I have no sympathy for drunk drivers, particularly those who ruin other people's lives. If they get financially ruined because of their own stupidity...so much the better.

jc


* Subsistance living does *not* include paying off a mortgage, incidentally. If you have a house, you may end up losing it to pay this bill if its high enough.

Guy:Incognito

E92 wrote: »

Apologies if this has been covered already but why are only learners and those who passed the test recently going to have a limit of 20 mg/l blood alcohol level:mad:? The "more experienced" will haved the limit reduced to 50 mg/l.

The government has picked a soft target for maximum politial capital yet again. People have to lear to drive at some stage like, you can't just become "experienced" overnight like:(:rolleyes:.(though how some people

Why can't EVERYONE be limited to 20 mg/l, given that that's what the safest countries in the world do and if they're as bothered about people drink driving then how can they justify something that is completely unjustifiable?

I think someone should take the Governemnt to court over discriminating one particular bunch of people. Alcohol is either dangerous or it's not, it's not 2.5 times less dangerous for some people:(.

Story here.

Why cant everyone in the uk be limited to the speed of "R" drivers?. It's discrimination against learners.

Anan1

E92 wrote: »

Alcohol is either dangerous or it's not, it's not 2.5 times less dangerous for some people:(.

It actually is! An experienced driver will be less unsafe than a learner at an equal level of inebriation.

ballooba

Anan1 wrote: »

It actually is! An experienced driver will be less unsafe than a learner at an equal level of inebriation.

Let's test that one Top Gear style with 16 pints each.

Riskymove

While I agree that the limit for everyone should be 20, I don't see how this is "discrimination" or "scape-goating"

1. The limit for everyone is coming down

2. The law now says if you are only learning to drive you shouldn't really drink at all when driving - I don't think that's unreasonable

3. If you are a full driver then you can have maybe 1 drink or whatever

Vegeta

Anan1 wrote: »

It actually is! An experienced driver will be less unsafe than a learner at an equal level of inebriation.

I strongly disagree with this statement

Wossack

Its not discrimination, its another limitation attached to the learners permit.

Learners are discriminated against because they cant use motorways?

Riskymove

Jar_421 wrote: »

That statement is so wrong its not even funny. older more experienced drivers, not all but a few, will tend to take more chances while driving, i.e. shooting through changing lights at the last second, overtaking when amazingly inappropriate to do so etc, as they will have that idea in their head of" well i've been doing this for years if anything happens I can handle it",
couple this with a drink or 2 and they will take even more chances.

Experience counts for nothing when any drink is involved. it should be the same for everyone regardless of how long they have been driving.

Lol!!

I think really that experience has nothing to do with what you are talking about...I am sure there are plenty of unexperienced or people with little experience who act in this way as well

The real issue there is that there are drivers who...basically..are overconfident idiots who make bad decisions when driving...that will always be the case....with or without alcohol

Riskymove

Edited due to not reading post properly!!!

ninty9er

Riskymove wrote: »

3. If you are a full driver then you can have maybe 1 drink or whatever

It makes it okay because I have a full licence....bullsh1t!:mad::mad:

I'd be interested to see what the elderly rural provisional population think, or if the opinions proferred here change whith the amount of these people on the road highlighted.

Just don't let that idiot Mary White near this proposal.

On the other hand it has come from an expert committee, so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt in assuming they know what they're on about.

I reckon a compromise of a blanket 30mg would be acceptable.

the message is quite SIMPLE: If you drink, don't drive.

paddy316i

craichoe wrote: »

Can't have no limit, what if you had trace amounts on your breath from mouthwash etc.

Double negative!! tut tut

seaner

ninty9er wrote: »

the message is quite SIMPLE: If you drink, don't drive.

+1

Stephen

I think the reasoning behind it is that if you're driving on L plates you're only supposed to be behind the wheel for the purpose of learning to drive. Clearly anyone who decides to have a pint before a driving lesson is a ****ing moron and should be off the road.

---

That, of course, is in an ideal world.

But then there's the reality in Ireland where we have hundreds of thousands of people driving on L plates because either they're waiting ages for a test or they can't be arsed doing one anyway. Makes me think of that idiot TD a while back that suggested letting the elderly drive around without having to get licences :rolleyes:

roastie

does anyone have any evidence that learner drivers are the ones who are drink driving and causing the majority of accidents ? if so I and am sure others would like to be pointed to the statistics.

I am aware that learner drivers are involved in accidents i would just like to see the statistics of learners in accidents vs full license drivers in accidents. are learners that much more likely to be involved in an accident ? i hear people say this all the time , i juist never see the actual prove.

Cionád

ninty9er wrote: »

I reckon a compromise of a blanket 30mg would be acceptable.

the message is quite SIMPLE: If you drink, don't drive.

+ 2

From my past experience as a bar man in an "old man's pub", I can tell you at 9pm the car park was full, by 2am it was empty. We weren't serving many cranberry juices, and not an L plate between them. I think very few L drivers do drink and drive and would be fairly sure that the percentage among full-licence holders would be higher, so I think this proposal is another "we're tough on drink driving" approach that completely misses the point.

As javaboy says, we need enforcement, and proper enforcement where old man Seamus does not get away scott free cause he's in with the local guards. :mad:

Riskymove

paddy316i wrote: »

Double negative!! tut tut

not double negative just bad english:)

should be "Can't have 0 limit"

MCMLXXXIII

I still never really understood the limitations on any L drivers. I understand they are new and need to "Learn," but how is anyone supposed to learn if they don't get the experience.

When I say experience, I am talking about motorway restrictions, etc.

Besides that, there are way too many other factors with alcohol. What if a 49 year old man does not drink. On his 50th birthday he decides that he needs to "live a little" and start to drink. He then gets in the car and drives. He has the same anount of "experience" driving after drinking as an 18 year old, but it's okay? It doesn't make sense.

As for alcohol, it should be the same for everyone, no matter what.

I have posted in many other forums about speeding, etc., and there are plenty of people on boards.ie that think 40mph on the M-50 is great...but meanwhile on this thread people think it's okay for older people to drink more and drive?! Maybe if everyone wasn't so busy drinking, it would be safer to go more than 40mph on the motorway!

andrewh5

Wossack wrote: »

Its not discrimination, its another limitation attached to the learners permit.

Learners are discriminated against because they cant use motorways?

Learners shouldn't be driving unaccompanied anyway and they are bloody dangerous on motorways!

stepbar

--amadeus-- wrote: »

It's a proven fact that provisional licence holders are more likely to be at fault in an accident.

I have an issue with that. Please post some statistics.

ninty9er

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

I still never really understood the limitations on any L drivers. I understand they are new and need to "Learn," but how is anyone supposed to learn if they don't get the experience.

When I say experience, I am talking about motorway restrictions, etc.

Driving much like life is a continuous learning experience (i.e the first time you encounter ice, the first time you drive on a motorway, the first time you get a flat tyre). The learning doesn't stop just because you pass a test, if it did we'd have people all over the country leaving school with A1s in Leaving Cert Accounting telling us they should be allowed to audit Dell's accounts

Riskymove

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

What if a 49 year old man does not drink. On his 50th birthday he decides that he needs to "live a little" and start to drink. He then gets in the car and drives. He has the same amount of "experience" driving after drinking as an 18 year old, but it's okay? It doesn't make sense.

Its your post that does not make sense...or maybe its just been a long day!!

What are you on about???

In the scenario above the 50 year old man has I presume a full licence and has experience driving...therefore under the new rules he is allowed a "slightly" higher amount of alcohol in system

thats the only difference between him and a learner

and...

"experience" driving after drinking ??? are you suggesting this is about how much experience you have at driving after drinking???

ninty9er

roastie wrote: »

does anyone have any evidence that learner drivers are the ones who are drink driving and causing the majority of accidents ? if so I and am sure others would like to be pointed to the statistics.

Could we also have a fatal accident breakdown, and while we're at it (and I'm not joking) see how many young males who caused fatal accidents bought/were paying for the car they were driving:mad::mad:

Learners cause accidents, but how many people died last year as a result of accidents caused by learner drivers. I'm blindly guessing, but I'm good at blindly guessing and I reckon it's less than 1/3. I wouldn't put money on it, but given the cars involved in a lot of these accidents, even Quinn would have reservations insuring learners on them:rolleyes:

MCMLXXXIII

Riskymove wrote: »

Its your post that does not make sense...or maybe its just been a long day!!

What are you on about???

In the scenario above the 50 year old man has I presume a full licence and has experience driving...therefore under the new rules he is allowed a "slightly" higher amount of alcohol in system

thats the only difference between him and a learner

and...

"experience" driving after drinking ??? are you suggesting this is about how much experience you have at driving after drinking???

...it might have been a long day for both of us...

Here is what I meant:

L drivers can't drink as much because they don't want new drivers drinking.
But what about old drivers drinking?
Won't it have the same effect? Both drivers would be new to driving with alcohol in their system, and might not know how to react.
Get it?