L drivers are scapegoated in new drink driving law.

Niall1234

Its not as much scapegoating Learners as it is telling people with full licences that drinking right up to the limit is perfectably acceptable as they have been driving longer.

In my book, anyone who drinks anything and drives is a fool.


On the flip side, this might bring down insurance for learners as they should technically be less risky.

maidhc

Riskymove wrote: »

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???

Well he should definately be able to hold his drink better than a 17yo... I know I will be flamed for this, but I don't think a couple of pints knocks any more out of people than being a bit fatigued!

The Muppet

ninty9er wrote: »

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:

I read a report recently that gave the information you requested and it found that Learner drivers were far less likely to be involved in an accident that fully licensed drivers. It was published in an newspaper but I wouldn't know where to get it on the net, maybe somone else here would be able to help.

IMO there is no doubt that Learner Drivers are recieving far more than their share of the blame for the poor standard of driving on our roads and therfor the focus is not on teh real problem.

Typical Irish reaction to the problem is to Lower the limits rather than to be regularly seen to fully enforce the limits that are in existance.

If we all knew that we had an above average chance of being caught if we drive dangerously the majority would obey the limits and the points system would take care of those that continued their poor driving.

javaboy

The Muppet wrote: »

Typical Irish reaction to the problem is to Lower the limits rather than to be regularly seen to fully enforce the limits that are in existance.

If we all knew that we had an above average chance of being caught if we drive dangerously the majority would obey the limits and the points system would take care of those that continued their poor driving.

+1

I could drink drive 7 days a week if I wanted and drive the usual 30 miles a day that I do and be almost certain that I wouldn't get caught. If they lower the limit to 0.000001, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. I almost never see Garda cars on my commute and I have never been stopped on this journey day or night. If laws aren't enforced it doesn't matter what they are.

MCMLXXXIII

maidhc wrote: »

Well he should definately be able to hold his drink better than a 17yo... I know I will be flamed for this, but I don't think a couple of pints knocks any more out of people than being a bit fatigued!

^+1

Canadian Study

If you're driving tired… you're driving impaired.

Drowsy drivers put themselves and other road users at risk. Fatigue affects our ability to drive by slowing reaction time, decreasing awareness and impairing judgment.

Most of us have driven tired or sleepy. Many think that just because we haven't been drinking, we are OK to drive.

But the evidence shows that an over-tired driver can be as dangerous as a drunk.
Many who would never drink and drive think nothing of hitting the road exhausted. An alarming 20% of Canadians admit to falling asleep at the wheel at least once over the previous year (TIRF 2005).

This poll result is in line with the most recent Canadian statistical study (CCMTA NCDB May 2006) which suggests fatigue is a factor in 19% of all fatal collisions and 23% of collisions.

javaboy

maidhc wrote: »

Well he should definately be able to hold his drink better than a 17yo... I know I will be flamed for this, but I don't think a couple of pints knocks any more out of people than being a bit fatigued!

In the situation Riskymove posted the 50 year old is having his first drink. 17yo has probably been drinking years.:D Every person is different. I know regular drinkers in their 30's who get drunk very quickly and I know skinny occasional drinkers who could binge til 3am and barely show it.

So there is no guarantee that the 50 year old would hold his drink better than a 17yo.

About the fatigue thing, I think fatigue has a very similar effect to drink driving. Mobile phone usage also has a similar effect. I know how Gardai can enforce drink driving and I know how they can enforce mobile phone usage, but how are they supposed to enforce fatigue legislation? It's practically impossible.

--amadeus--

stepbar wrote: »

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

Fair enough:

YOUNG DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 55% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 45% FOR YOUNG DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES. OLDER DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 36% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 43% FOR OLDER DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES.
link

and

According to the NRA report of the road accidents in 1997 where licence information was provided, 38% of young car drivers aged 17 to 24 years injured were reported as holding a provisional licence, compared to 9% of older car drivers. The corresponding figures for young and older motorcyclists were 69% and 36%, respectively. Changes have subsequently been made to the licensing regime for novice motorcyclists.
Within the statistical limitations involved, the NRA report also estimates that drivers with provisional licences are considered to be to a large extent responsible for road accidents in which they are involved to a higher degree than drivers of corresponding age and gender who have full licences. The extent of this greater responsibility ranges from +5% to +11%, depending on age and or gender

from here

Why is it controversial to suggest that inexperienced drivers are more at risk of an accident? You fell off your bike when you were learning to ride it didn't you?

Back OT - think of driving skill on a scale from 0 - 100. The likes of Lewis Hamilton or Michael Schumacher are up in the high 90s and Biddy who doesn't know what a steering wheel is for is down at 4 or 5. We're all somewhere on that scale and going below a certain point makes you a danger to yourself and to others. My point is that as you gain experience you move up the scale. There is a limit - after a certain age poor visiona nd slowed reactions pull you back down again.

But ANY amount of alcohol pulls you down that scale. Inexperienced drivers just have less room to fall before they cross the threshold into danger.

BostonB

There should be zero tolerance end of. Pubs should lay on a bus around the local area.

Breezer

BostonB wrote: »

There should be zero tolerance end of. Pubs should lay on a bus around the local area.

+1 (or if you want to account for the mouthwash thing, have a ridiculously low limit that 1 pint would put you well over).

Interestingly enough, I'm 21, been driving since I was 17 as have many people I know, and I've never known one of them to drink and drive. They do lots of other mad, dangerous things, but no drink driving. No statistics to back this up, but in my own personal experience it seems to be more of a problem among middle aged people. Given that most learners are young people, I find this attitude interesting.

My main issue is with the limit for fully licenced drivers remaining so high though, not with the limit for learners being low.

eringobragh

In fairness (Not condoning drink driving), I'd take a guess and say the amount of fatalities are well over the 80mg limit.

Padraig Mor

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Fair enough:

YOUNG DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 55% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 45% FOR YOUNG DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES. OLDER DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 36% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 43% FOR OLDER DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES.
link

and

According to the NRA report of the road accidents in 1997 where licence information was provided, 38% of young car drivers aged 17 to 24 years injured were reported as holding a provisional licence, compared to 9% of older car drivers. The corresponding figures for young and older motorcyclists were 69% and 36%, respectively. Changes have subsequently been made to the licensing regime for novice motorcyclists.
Within the statistical limitations involved, the NRA report also estimates that drivers with provisional licences are considered to be to a large extent responsible for road accidents in which they are involved to a higher degree than drivers of corresponding age and gender who have full licences. The extent of this greater responsibility ranges from +5% to +11%, depending on age and or gender.

Just to clarify: that report is from 2000, prior to the introduction of the Theory Test - which I think led to a huge improvement in provisional driving standards.

colsers22

I'm 26 years old, have been driving full time for 2 years now. I have yet to be pulled over for random breath testing. I have passed by one check point on the opposite side of the road. I do quite a bit of driving on all types of roads. The point is, if they are not enforcing the laws, the legal limit is irrelevent.
I could drive home blotto every single weekend in my home time and not meet one gaurd, ever.. It's totally ridiculous!

hugejeans

they do enforce the drink driving laws, its just they normally do it between 7am and 9am to catch people picking their cars up after the night before.

ninty9er

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Fair enough:

YOUNG DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 55% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 45% FOR YOUNG DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES. OLDER DRIVERS WITH FULL LICENCES, WHERE A LICENCE CATEGORY WAS SPECIFIED, WERE HELD TO BE TO A LARGE EXTENT RESPONSIBLE IN 36% OF ACCIDENTS, COMPARED WITH 43% FOR OLDER DRIVERS WITH PROVISIONAL LICENCES.
link

As you noted yourself, those figures are 11 years old....give us some proper ones:rolleyes::rolleyes:

ninty9er

hugejeans wrote: »

they do enforce the drink driving laws, its just they normally do it between 7am and 9am to catch people picking their cars up after the night before.

And why should those drunks be treated any differently to those who drove home twisted too??

I've never seen that happen though, as I've said; I've been brethaysed twice this year, both times after 12am

JimmyCrackCorn!

Get a full licence.:rolleyes:

Your learning to drive drinking a pint wont make it any easier to learn.

Stark

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

You need alcohol in order to learn how to drive?

And it would seem pretty obvious that an inexperienced driver will be more at risk with impaired reactions than an experienced driver, hence the lower limit. Also, driving with 50mg/l isn't exactly "driving twisted". I've seen a lot of reports that say it's an optimum trade off point from a safety perspective, any lower and you don't get significant safety gains.

--amadeus--

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Just to clarify: that report is from 2000, prior to the introduction of the Theory Test - which I think led to a huge improvement in provisional driving standards.

A little bit like the practical test only proving that you can follow a proscribed set of driving rules for the time the tester is with you the theory test just proves that you can answer theoretical questions, it's not the real thing and it's not applied (otherwise why have a practical test at all?). That said I don't know about a huge improvement but I'd agree that it has probably made some difference.

ninty9er wrote: »

As you noted yourself, those figures are 11 years old....give us some proper ones:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The nature of statistics is that you can only use what is measured. Our government in it's wisdom has decided - despite the clear evidence of the two studies cited above - not to follow through with any further statistical analysis or data collection in the area of provisional vs full licence holders in accidents. In other words these are the most up to date figures available - or at least that I was able to find.

I'll put it the other way - I have found government sourced data proving that provisional drivers are more likely to be at fault in an accident. Can you produce statistics, links or data to say that they are as safe or safer than fully qualified drivers?

And I agree 100% that the limit is broadly irrelevant - it's enforcement that counts.

Stark

--amadeus-- wrote:

And I agree 100% that the limit is broadly irrelevant - it's enforcement that counts.

Lowering the limit does away with the various notions people have of "one or two pints and I'll be fine" or "I'll be fine with a bit of soakage". Once people have one, they think they can handle two. However, people see the new limits as being more draconian and think "now I can't even get away with one" so the result is a lot more people driving clean and sober.

Lowering the limit has no effect on those who blatantly flout the law to begin with, but it does improve the situation with people who think they're obeying the law but are skirting close to the edge.

--amadeus--

We're moving into the theory of crime and punishment now but it is generally accepted that a punishment only has a significant deterrent effect if the potential criminal feels that there is a likelihood of capture and conviction.

Research clearly shows that people are less likely to offend when they believe they will be caught. Most chronic offenders — the ones who cause the most harm— do not believe they will be caught. Penalties, regardless of severity, have little preventive effect unless they are seen to be enforced. Visible enforcement has a greater impact on safety than simply having tough penalties on the books. from here

Place the limit where you want but unless people have a fairly high certainty that they will be caught the limits will have no effect. The reason I don't drink and drive isn't because I am worried about getting caught I don't drink and drive because I don't want to hurt myself, others or damage my car. Check your own motivation - I'd be surprised if fear of punishment ranks higher than safety.

Stark

--amadeus-- wrote: »

Check your own motivation - I'd be surprised if fear of punishment ranks higher than safety.

True. I never drink and drive, limit or no limit and for me that's a safety thing. It doesn't matter that the current limit is 80mg/l, I don't believe that's safe, so I don't drive at that limit. I don't need the threat of punishment to not do something. However there are many people with similar enough attitudes but have the mentality of "if it's legal, it's safe". They won't intentionally go above the limit, enforcement or no enforcement, but they will use the limit as an excuse for driving with one or two.

Wook

geezes be happy Ireland is so easy going in this allready.

On the continent no full license, no driving end of story
(unless with day light hours, or with a passenger who has his license for 2-3 years etc)

I was surprise theory done, get into my car go home...2 years later do test.
and i agree don't drink and drive