Drink Driving Limits

vinylrules

slimjimmc wrote: »

Do you think the effects of intoxication only affects other road users but not wheelchair users? Wheelchairs don't offer much protection if the user rolled into the path of a truck because their decision making was impaired by booze.
I wonder how many people have been killed by hot air balloon pilots over the limit? AFAIK very very few, if any, so using your logic do you think aviation law should be changed to allowed them drink and fly?

No, I don't think hot air balloon pilots should get pissed before they take to the air. What's your point? If a hot air balloon pilot was three-sheets-to the wind - I'm pretty sure his co-passengers or the people who release the ropes to allow his balloon to take off would have something to say. I'm simply saying that the full weight of the law should not be brought down on people who have no other means of transport but their electric wheelchair. There are no laws specifically preventing people from sticking their fingers into electrical sockets are there? Even though it would result in certain death. Do we have to have laws to deal with every conceivable risk to our lives? Ban swimming and we'll save a lot of lives. I mean, no-one needs to swim do they? It serves no purpose does it? The nanny state has gone far enough...

Spiritoftheseventies

While I am totally in favour of tough penalties on drink driving i think the 50mg limit is taking it a bit far.
Know the VA have a vested interested in keeping it as it is but as has been mentioned before, those cut off in rural areas should not have the worry of being stopped the next morning for the one pint they had the night before which could potentially put them over.
All i can see happening is that more jobs will be lost in the Pub industry and as with the current Bus Gate debacle on College green where motorists are being driven out into the greater dublin area to do their shopping, I think this is another counter productive step.

bonkey

bayviewclose wrote: »

as has been mentioned before, those cut off in rural areas should not have the worry of being stopped the next morning for the one pint they had the night before which could potentially put them over.

If this has been mentioned vefore, then I'm certain it has also been mentioned that this argument is a complete straw man.

Regardless of whether or not one pint would put you over the limit, the notion that you would still be over the limit the following morning from that same amount is completely devoid of basis in fact.

Jolly85

vinylrules wrote: »

Don't know how you can come to this conclusion based on the RSA figures. Have a look again at the report from 2003
http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/Alcohol%20In%20Fatal%20Road%20Crashes%20in%20Ireland%202003.pdf?PHPSESSID=e33adc55c3a88bafa57e927158e223b0 QUOTE]

My mother is part of the stats in the above document, in the age bracket of 45-50, time bracket of 2-3am on a Sunday morning with one drink consumed throughout the duration of the night. Cause of accident? that of a young male who was 3 times the 2003 legal limit driving on the wrong side of the road, asleep. Two car collision, one fatality.

I am in favour of the current legal limit being reduced to 50mg and would even welcome a zero tolerance in the future. I am from the country and would never ever dream of having one drink and driving, never. I have no problem drinking a mineral and being the designated driver or going out and waiting for a hackney to get home safely.

I have seen first hand the impact of a road accident on a family. To loose any member of a family through death is tough but to loose someone you love prematurely through the actions of another person is bloody awful and not comprehendable.

You never forget it, it's always on your mind. Every accident you hear in the media brings it all back, that another families world has been turned upside down, you know how they are feeling, the what if's and the denial.


Factor's that caused the accident

• alcohol
• tiredness
• speed

You never forget.

dan_d

I just don't understand the fuss.
The guy is trying to put in place a measure to help reduce drink driving and the subsequent deaths, regardless of what his ulterior motives may be. There is just no argument against that. It's more an indication of how obsessed we are with alcohol and our resistance to change that this debate has even arisen in our Government.

Spiritoftheseventies

bonkey wrote: »

If this has been mentioned vefore, then I'm certain it has also been mentioned that this argument is a complete straw man.

Regardless of whether or not one pint would put you over the limit, the notion that you would still be over the limit the following morning from that same amount is completely devoid of basis in fact.

The fact is that the new proposed laws are putting fear of god into people in country who see the odd pint or so as their only social outlet.
But know what you are saying. It takes roughly one hour for a pint to clear from system. But again not everyone knows that.

sold

dan_d wrote: »

I just don't understand the fuss.
The guy is trying to put in place a measure to help reduce drink driving and the subsequent deaths, regardless of what his ulterior motives may be. There is just no argument against that. It's more an indication of how obsessed we are with alcohol and our resistance to change that this debate has even arisen in our Government.

I think every view has been written on this, but for once the goverment has gotten it 100% right!. This is no place for drink when you drive. Its about time the obsession with this stops. Shame on the backbench TD's!!.

Spiritoftheseventies

sold wrote: »

I think every view has been written on this, but for once the goverment has gotten it 100% right!. This is no place for drink when you drive. Its about time the obsession with this stops. Shame on the backbench TD's!!.

Fair enough. But do people who drink one or two pints cause the deaths. All very well for people up in Dublin (of which I am one) to say this but if you a farmer who lives in an isolated area with no public transport and are now being told you cant even have one pint its a bit draconian.
It may be their only outlet of socializing during the day and now that is being taken away from them. And as mentioned before is that these measures will lead to more rural pubs closing which means more unemployment and a higher social welfare bill.
Maybe AA survey which was broadcast on Morning Ireland is right. There may be a lot in favour of these measures but how many of those polled were outside of Dublin.

SLUSK

bayviewclose wrote: »

Fair enough. But do people who drink one or two pints cause the deaths. All very well for people up in Dublin (of which I am one) to say this but if you a farmer who lives in an isolated area with no public transport and are now being told you cant even have one pint its a bit draconian.
It may be their only outlet of socializing during the day and now that is being taken away from them. And as mentioned before is that these measures will lead to more rural pubs closing which means more unemployment and a higher social welfare bill.
Maybe AA survey which was broadcast on Morning Ireland is right. There may be a lot in favour of these measures but how many of those polled were outside of Dublin.

You do not have to drink alcoholic beverages in a pub and also if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere you have to accept that your social life will be limited.

Spiritoftheseventies

SLUSK wrote: »

You do not have to drink alcoholic beverages in a pub and also if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere you have to accept that your social life will be limited.

Who says people chose to live in rural back posts. And we all know how much publicans charge for non alcoholic beverages.
Again show a bit of understanding for the situation. How many deaths are caused by people drinking one to two pints.
I say those back bench TDS are making noise because their constituents are making noise about it.

Liam Byrne

SLUSK wrote: »

....if you choose to live in the middle of nowhere you have to accept that your social life will be limited.

Firstly, we're not just talking about "the middle of nowhere".

Secondly, if that's a family home that has been in the family for generations, and maybe even a family business or family farm, are you suggesting that people should move into a city ?

The fact is that people DO accept that their social life - and everything else in the way of facilities, for that matter : Gardai, public transport, roads, community centres, shops, broadband, post offices - even airports - are severely limited and have been closed and abandoned by the out-of-touch, Dublin-based Government. And we'll live with a lot of that, but there's no need to make it worse!

Mike 1972

Secondly, if that's a family home that has been in the family for generations, and maybe even a family business or family farm, are you suggesting that people should move into a city ?

If a person living in such a place finds that by living there they are unable to access the amenities they want/need then they would be insane not to.

Liam Byrne

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If a person living in such a place finds that by living there they are unable to access the amenities they want/need then they would be insane not to.

Easier said than done; I'm only a few miles outside the city with crap mobile and broadband coverage, and the local shop closed AFTER I moved.

So you can hardly expect people to move after they've set down roots and made a home; contrary to what the banks and auctioneers would have you believe, some people wanted to make a home for themselves, not get onto a fictional and contrived "property ladder".

Spiritoftheseventies

yes if RSA were to come up with statistics that said could link x amount of accidents to those drinking one to two pints that would be a start.
It is said that even some mouth washes contain alcohol so reducing limit to zero mgs would not be feasible I think.

Liam Byrne

bayviewclose wrote: »

yes if RSA were to come up with statistics that said could link x amount of accidents to those drinking one to two pints that would be a start.

Not "link"; caused by. As pointed out earlier, if two cars crash, and one driver has, say 60mg and the other 140mg, that could be "linked to" 60mg, statistically.

Spiritoftheseventies

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not "link"; caused by. As pointed out earlier, if two cars crash, and one driver has, say 60mg and the other 140mg, that could be "linked to" 60mg, statistically.

Yes thats interesting. So who picks up the penalty points in terms of the insurance company being notified?

tomcollins97

Has anyone managed to find any Irish stats detailing the number of road fatalities and the levels of blood alcohol in those people’s bodies? I have looked and can’t find this detail – only that alcohol was involved in x number of deaths.

Of those related to alcohol I would be interested to see if the person under the influence was at fault or if it was a case of being hit by a dangerous driver in which case no amount of sobriety would have helped. I would be particularly interested in this data for the 50-80mg band.

Has anyone found and info detailing other factors for those deaths where drink was involved i.e. bad road, poor weather conditions, car fault, event where a car could not have physically stopped in time regardless of the alcohol intake?

tomcollins97

Jolly85 wrote: »

vinylrules wrote: »

Don't know how you can come to this conclusion based on the RSA figures. Have a look again at the report from 2003
http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/Alcohol%20In%20Fatal%20Road%20Crashes%20in%20Ireland%202003.pdf?PHPSESSID=e33adc55c3a88bafa57e927158e223b0 QUOTE]

My mother is part of the stats in the above document, in the age bracket of 45-50, time bracket of 2-3am on a Sunday morning with one drink consumed throughout the duration of the night. Cause of accident? that of a young male who was 3 times the 2003 legal limit driving on the wrong side of the road, asleep. Two car collision, one fatality.

I truly sympathise with your situation and am very sorry for your loss, a tragedy for you and your family.

However, I do not agree with the planned reduction. From what is reported in the press, and in your situation, the majority of fatal accidents seem to occur when someone has consumed a large amount of alcohol. Anyone who drinks way over the limit now will continue to do so even if the limit is reduced.

What this change will do is affect people like your late mother, who are responsible, drink only one drink (with a dinner or lunch) and then safely drive home. Those who flout the law now will continue to do so so I cannot see what difference the drop will make. Is there such a change in ability between 50mg and 80mg that this change is even worth the hassle?

Spiritoftheseventies

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Jolly85 wrote: »

I truly sympathise with your situation and am very sorry for your loss, a tragedy for you and your family.

However, I do not agree with the planned reduction. From what is reported in the press, and in your situation, the majority of fatal accidents seem to occur when someone has consumed a large amount of alcohol. Anyone who drinks way over the limit now will continue to do so even if the limit is reduced.

What this change will do is affect people like your late mother, who are responsible, drink only one drink (with a dinner or lunch) and then safely drive home. Those who flout the law now will continue to do so so I cannot see what difference the drop will make. Is there such a change in ability between 50mg and 80mg that this change is even worth the hassle?

Yes problem i see is the unrealistic speed limits being put on the roads. I think there should be a 30k speed limit on Country roads after dark.
And i again i say the 50 mg is a bit drastic. as above poster said whats the difference between 80 mg and 50mg. Limit is fine as it is.

ART6

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Has anyone managed to find any Irish stats detailing the number of road fatalities and the levels of blood alcohol in those people’s bodies? I have looked and can’t find this detail – only that alcohol was involved in x number of deaths.

Of those related to alcohol I would be interested to see if the person under the influence was at fault or if it was a case of being hit by a dangerous driver in which case no amount of sobriety would have helped. I would be particularly interested in this data for the 50-80mg band.

Has anyone found and info detailing other factors for those deaths where drink was involved i.e. bad road, poor weather conditions, car fault, event where a car could not have physically stopped in time regardless of the alcohol intake?

This post hits the nail on the head IMHO. It's no use producing statistics that state that alcohol was involved in a given number of accidents since all that reveals is that one or more parties had drink taken. The statistics don't say how much or whether it was the cause of the accident, and so are misleading. Unfortunately it is the habit of incompetent politicians to use and manipulate statistics to support their particular hobby horses, especially when those hobby horses make little sense and are no more than self advertising.

And, by the way, I do not drink and drive, at all, ever.

vinylrules

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Of those related to alcohol I would be interested to see if the person under the influence was at fault or if it was a case of being hit by a dangerous driver in which case no amount of sobriety would have helped. I would be particularly interested in this data for the 50-80mg band.

Has anyone found and info detailing other factors for those deaths where drink was involved i.e. bad road, poor weather conditions, car fault, event where a car could not have physically stopped in time regardless of the alcohol intake?

You will never find this informatoin in the Irish context. Why? Because if you're a drinker and you're involved in an accident it's considered your fault! Even if you're a moderate drinker, well within the limits and a careful, responsible driver in a collision with a maniac. Where do you think all this, "just one drink...could you live with the shame?...never, ever, ever...etc.etc stuff is coming from.

The exact same argument for dropping drink drive limits could be used to drop speed limits - yet this isn't going to happen. The "if it saves just one life" brigade would be noticeably absent from such a debate. Why? No drinkers to wag the finger at....it's the drinking not the driving! See here

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/572585

Arnold Layne

Although I agree that there are no correct stats available in relation to the amount of alcohol taken versus accidents caused; is it not about time, as a nation. to follow some rules?

Liam Byrne

Arnold Layne wrote: »

is it not about time, as a nation. to follow some rules?

Some of us do follow them. The existing ones, that is.

Spiritoftheseventies

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Some of us do follow them. The existing ones, that is.

Yes lets see some transparency here from RSA. Present some stats on this. Again the big problem i see is the 80 to 100k speed limits in existence on dark country roads. I realise that motorists who travel long distances may feel the need to get home quicker but clearly anyone who has ever driven down one of those roads will know they are unsafe.
If govt is really that serious about drink living limits put more police on road particularly along these stretches at random times during the night.
Whenever there are check points put up it always seems to be for tax and insurance purposes. Thats where the priority seems to be at the moment.

destroyer

bayviewclose wrote: »

Yes lets see some transparency here from RSA. Present some stats on this. Again the big problem i see is the 80 to 100k speed limits in existence on dark country roads. I realise that motorists who travel long distances may feel the need to get home quicker but clearly anyone who has ever driven down one of those roads will know they are unsafe.
If govt is really that serious about drink living limits put more police on road particularly along these stretches at random times during the night.
Whenever there are check points put up it always seems to be for tax and insurance purposes. Thats where the priority seems to be at the moment.

The gov. isnt serious, at least not about catching the worst drink-drive offenders. The government cares only about its own popularity.
Why reduce the limit to 50mg when the 80mg law was never strictly enforced? I'll tell you why.
The upcoming budget will see some huge cutbacks in public sector pay, mainly in the area of overtime. Garda overtime will be seriously curtailed especially weekends and late night/early morning. This as we know is when most of the drink related deaths occur, therefore accidents/deaths are likely to increase.
The gov. will say its not their fault, didnt they show how serious they are about the problem by reducing limits, its joe public who needs to change his attitude.
The Gardai will show statistics showing more arrests than ever,(these will mainly occur midweek / during normal working hours probably while the "offender" is crawling in rush hour traffic going to work, and not likely to even hurt you if he did hit you).
The anti drink driving campaigners will point to the continuing carnage and call for a reduction to zero, wheeling out the latest spouse/parent/sibling who has lost someone to pull at the heartstrings and convince us all with an emotional appeal.
The drunk driver, several times over the limit, possibly combining this with drugs, tiredness ,reckless driving etc. will still be there causing devestation mainly at weekends/early morning hours when no Gardai are around.
The ordinary punter who might occasionally have two pints over the course of a night out and drive home carefully will be hounded and criminalised like a murderer.
The gov. meanwhile will be blameless, covering up their own ineptitude and lack of cohesive action by managing to shift the blame on to the ordinary punter and getting away without allocating any resources to tackle what is a very serious problem.

OldJay

A law like this is also designed to be a deterrent.
Some of the excuses against drink-driving laws are pathetic.

Tragedy

Most of the arguments for more stringent drink driving laws are pathetic.

See how easy that was?

OldJay

Tragedy wrote: »

Most of the arguments for mor stringent drink driving laws are pathetic.
See how easy that was?

Of course its easy. I just gave two views from myself on what I thought about it all. One that it is designed to be a deterrent and two, that arguing on purely economic terms is what I find pathetic.

I don't think Irish drivers should touch a drop if driving. There are enough Irish people woeful at driving as it is. Its a shame that they never like being told what to do even in the name of trying to create an entirely different attitude towards drinking and driving.

destroyer

Justind wrote: »

A law like this is also designed to be a deterrent.
.

Laws have never been shown to be effective as a deterrent, in any juristiction, at any time for any crime.
The only real deterrent is stringent enforcement and this applies to everything from shop lifting to murder

destroyer

Villain wrote: »

no comments on the ideas??

I'll comment on one, "5 times more checkpoints"
Great idea, but its not going to happen. The main reason the limit is being reduced is because there will less checkpoints, at least at the crucial times to reduce deaths. The new law is a smokescreen to hide this.