Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Drink Driving Limits
Options
Comments
-
QFT!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.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Major flaw in that calculation!
If you're saying that 2% of accidents have the minimum level of alcohol, then that's 2% of (110+205) which is 6 accidents.
205 with no alcohol
6 with some alcohol
So you've increased your chances of having an accident by 3%. So you are 1.03 times more likely to have be involved in a fatal accident with the minimum of drink taken.
Now there's a major, major flaw in that.
205 accidents resulting in fatality had no alcohol involved.
There are no proper, published statistics for all the thousands upon thousands of accidents that happen in this country every year.
Until such time as it can be proven that alcohol in any amount isn't a factor in those thousands of accidents then I'm happy to have the limit lowered. If at some future time statistics emerge to prove that nobody with a BAC of, lets say, 25mg or lower caused an accident, then 25mg could be legislated for, if it's 75mg, then 75mg could be legislated for.
The first step is proper data collection.0 -
Now there's a major, major flaw in that.
205 accidents resulting in fatality had no alcohol involved.
Firstly, I was replying to an earlier post, which referred to accidents with fatalities. And please be a lot more specific when you claim "flaw in that"; because the way you posted it could seem to suggest - incorrectly - that the flaw was in the calculation, rather than your valid-enough point that there's an issue with viewing accidents with fatalities only.
But again - I'd suggest that you take that up with original poster whose fatalities-only calculations I was correcting, as you didn't seem to voice your concerns then, or point out that their calculations were WAY off. Why is that ?There are no proper, published statistics for all the thousands upon thousands of accidents that happen in this country every year.
Until such time as it can be proven that alcohol in any amount isn't a factor in those thousands of accidents then I'm happy to have the limit lowered. If at some future time statistics emerge to prove that nobody with a BAC of, lets say, 25mg or lower caused an accident, then 25mg could be legislated for, if it's 75mg, then 75mg could be legislated for.
The first step is proper data collection.
Agreed 100% - on the last sentence. So let's collect the data and see if it can be proven that there's a benefit to lowering the limit.
Then, let's enforce the current limit, so that accidents between those below the limit and those above it, and accidents involving sober drivers and pissed pedestrians and cyclists on the dark rural roads can be ruled out.
And having done all that, we will then have a clear picture. And can change the law IF REQUIRED. That is proper, considered, thoughtful legislation.0 -
Theres no flaw in his calculations, theres a flaw in how the data is collected.Now there's a major, major flaw in that.
205 accidents resulting in fatality had no alcohol involved.
There are no proper, published statistics for all the thousands upon thousands of accidents that happen in this country every year.
Until such time as it can be proven that alcohol in any amount isn't a factor in those thousands of accidents then I'm happy to have the limit lowered. If at some future time statistics emerge to prove that nobody with a BAC of, lets say, 25mg or lower caused an accident, then 25mg could be legislated for, if it's 75mg, then 75mg could be legislated for.
The first step is proper data collection.
That doesn't mean theres a flaw in what he calculated.0 -
vinylrules wrote: »T runner - the 35% figure for 2003 (it's actually 36.5% ) is the "alcohol related" figure - which also includes pedestrians (7%) who died with alcohol in them.
The driver alcohol figure is 27.5%, not 35%. This "alcohol-related" term is very misleading and is used deliberately by road safety campaingers world wide to make the situation appear worse than it is
Well they are doing a survey on alcohol related deaths. They have said quite clearly in the report that other things may have been contributary factors.
So a small percentage of the driver alcohol related deaths might have nothing to do with alcohol.
Anyone of us with an interest in this subject should read below ........
At BACs less than 0.08% but greater than 0.06%, about 70% of all accidents are due to alcohol. For all BAC classes greater than 0.08%, the ARs are greater than 80%. For drivers in this latter BAC categories, nearly all the accidents may be attributed to the effects of alcohol.[/B].........[/CENTER]
The part in bold above is the vital information which proves the necessity for the limit to be brought down.
If you are killed in an accident and you have between 60-80 mg alcohol in your blood there is a 70% chance that your death was due to alcohol.
That means that there is a 30% chance that your death was not due to alcohol. That means that you are 70/30=2.33 times more likely to be killed in an accident with alcohol of between 60-80 mg in your bloodstream.
This survey was conducted in 1992. (LINK) This percentage had increase significantly from 1964 (more complicated driving conditiond in 92 than 64). You would have to assume that todays figure would be even higher than the 2.33 ratio.
This survey shows the 50mg limit (accepted internationally) as the correct one.
Another angle that people sometimes dont see is that some of the deaths with high alcohol levels may have been people who had not intended to drink and drive. e.g people who had 2 drinks, were comfortable enjoying themselves decided to risk a third. Ended up talking 6 and being killed on the road.
The point is that taking a drink makes you more likely to take another drink.
This is why its a wise strategy when driving not to drink at all. Lowering the limit can only have a downward effect on deaths on the people who didnt intend going over the limit when taking their second drink but did so due to their impaired judgement and decision making.0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, I was replying to an earlier post, which referred to accidents with fatalities. And please be a lot more specific when you claim "flaw in that"; because the way you posted it could seem to suggest - incorrectly - that the flaw was in the calculation, rather than your valid-enough point that there's an issue with viewing accidents with fatalities only.
But again - I'd suggest that you take that up with original poster whose fatalities-only calculations I was correcting, as you didn't seem to voice your concerns then, or point out that their calculations were WAY off. Why is that ?
I am the original poster. You tried to point out that my calculations were WAY out. I replied and had to point out that you had mixed up the figures. You didnt reply. Why are you still claiming its "way off" without being able to substantiate your claim?
Every international survey shows that you are far more likely to be involved in a fatal accident with between 50mg and 80mg of alcohol in your system than with none. Heres one
Are you a FF backbencher by any chance?0 -
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?
Sorry but the introduction of random breath testing was a serious measure. I was breathalised 5 times last year.
I'll tell you why.The upcoming budget will see some huge cutbacks in public sector pay, mainly in the area of overtime.
What are you talking about? There is already a curfew on overtime.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.
So its a conspiracy? Are you not being a bit ridiculous now? Calms the nerves... stops rural suicide.. all a conspiracy to take the heat off the government.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.
Thats completely unfair. It has been demonstrated quite clearly that you are far more likely to be involved in a fatal car accident if you have between 60-80 mg of alcohol in your system. There is no doubt here. The new limit is inline with international standards. The only gombeenism being shown in this debate is people angry at the law because it affects them in some selfish personal way.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.
If the ordinary punter has between 60-80 mg of alcohol in his system he/she cannot choose to sober up and will be 2.5 more likely to cause death on the road. Unfortunately they wont be treated like a criminal yet as the government has capitulated with its different treatment of drunk people between 50-80 but Im sure the first fatality by someone in this category will demonstrate the absurdity of this leniency.0 -
I am the original poster. You tried to point out that my calculations were WAY out. I replied and had to point out that you had mixed up the figures. You didnt reply. Why are you still claiming its "way off" without being able to substantiate your claim?
Firstly, I missed your post in the middle of the others; I did not delberately ignore it.
Secondly, I've given you an EXACT calculation in how I came up with that figure; what makes your calculation supercede mine to that point where you claim that it's "unsubstantiated" ?
If you can see a flaw in my calculation, then by all means point it out. I'm simply using your statistics and calculating in a different way.
If there's a flaw, I'll 100% accept it. But I can't see one.
You said that 2% of accidents / 6 accidents have the minimum level of alcohol.
And 66% of accidents / 205 accidents have no alcohol.
So if you have the minimum level of alcohol, you are more likely to move from the 205 to the 6 (simplisticly, making it 204 & 7).2% of all motor journeys are driven by someone who has taken alcohol.
That means if you counted every car that passed by a particular point in street over 24 hours, that one in fifty cars would be driven by someone who had taken a drink (at least). That is 20%.....
Er, no, it's 2%.110 deaths related to alcohol in Ireland in 2003 ie 35% of total..........2% is probably high but lets take 2%. That means that (35/2 =14.5) you are 14.5 times more likely to be involved in a fatl accident with drink taken.
35% of the TOTAL deaths.
2% of drivers have the minimum drink; those 2% are FIRSTLY 2% of THE TOTAL DEATHS, and SECONDLY ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE 35% - people with drink taken.
So - taking your figures and applying them correctly :
33% of TOTAL DEATHS are caused by more than the minimum drink ONLY
2% of TOTAL DEATHS are caused by the minimum - legal - drink ONLY
65% of TOTAL DEATHS are caused by ZERO DRINK
So - if you decide to move from zero drink to the minimum drink, you've increased your chances by either 2/65 or 2/67, which is 0.03, or 3%, NOT 33/2 or 35/2, which gave you your figure.Are you a FF backbencher by any chance?
LMAO!!!! I'd almost prefer to be a drunk driver; it'd mean that I was less irresponsible!0 -
Liam...
How much would you usually drink and then drive after?
Just curious what the going socially acceptable rate is in rural Ireland.0 -
Liam...
How much would you usually drink and then drive after?
Just curious what the going socially acceptable rate is in rural Ireland.
It varies depending on a lot of things (I think that would be called being responsible).
Usually 2 or 3 shandies, or on the odd occasion 2 pints; possibly 3 if I was wide awake, had eaten, and was drinking very slowly while watching a match or something, but even allowing for those 3 factors that would be a very, very rare occasion.
I guess I'd probably viewed as rare, as I'd be more worried about an accident than "getting caught", and if a planned quiet night did turn into a session I'd just leave the car in the pub car park and go back the following evening for it - just like I did last weekend.
That's my point; being castigated despite being responsible is annoying. I'm not a big drinker and can often take it or leave it, and it's a pain to be lumped in or witch-hunted along with people who are completely irresponsible and reckon they can't have a night out without getting pissed out of their tree.
So I wouldn't in all fairness base any "acceptable going rate in rural Ireland" by my standards.0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »It varies depending on a lot of things (I think that would be called being responsible).
Usually 2 or 3 shandies, or on the odd occasion 2 pints; possibly 3 if I was wide awake, had eaten, and was drinking very slowly while watching a match or something, but even allowing for those 3 factors that would be a very, very rare occasion.
I guess I'd probably viewed as rare, as I'd be more worried about an accident than "getting caught", and if a planned quiet night did turn into a session I'd just leave the car in the pub car park and go back the following evening for it - just like I did last weekend.
That's my point; being castigated despite being responsible is annoying. I'm not a big drinker and can often take it or leave it, and it's a pain to be lumped in or witch-hunted along with people who are completely irresponsible and reckon they can't have a night out without getting pissed out of their tree.
So I wouldn't in all fairness base any "acceptable going rate in rural Ireland" by my standards.
What would you say, if a medical professional or a Doctor even told you that after your 3 shandies... you were not as bulletproof as you felt?
That your judgement was, in fact, impared! Even though you felt fine...
Would you ignore them?0 -
What would you say, if a medical professional or a Doctor even told you that after your 3 shandies... you were not as bulletproof as you felt?
That your judgement was, in fact, impared! Even though you felt fine...
Would you ignore them?
Firstly, using the phrase "as bulletproof as you felt" is emotive; it's implying false bravado.
Secondly, I could have no drink taken and be too tired; in that case I shouldn't drive either.
Or likewise if a doctor or medical professional said that because I had the flu I shouldn't drive.
Have you driven while tired or while you've had the flu ?0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, using the phrase "as bulletproof as you felt" is emotive; it's implying false bravado.
Secondly, I could have no drink taken and be too tired; in that case I shouldn't drive either.
Or likewise if a doctor or medical professional said that because I had the flu I shouldn't drive.
Have you driven while tired or while you've had the flu ?
Actually no. I have not driven while tired.
I have driven while I had the sniffles though!
You didn't answer the question!0 -
Actually no. I have not driven while tired.
I have driven while I had the sniffles though!
You didn't answer the question!
I didn't really need to; your driving is "impaired" by lots of things - tiredness, the sniffles, weather, darkness, etc. It's about a combination of common sense and the law.
Would I be OK with a 3% increase ? Yes.
Is there a similar increase between driving at 60mph and 50mph ? Yes - I would hazard a guess even more so. Do you view that as "acceptable", or do you drive at 50mph all the time ?
Would I combine that 3% increase with a 4% increase because of tiredness, or a 9% increase because of frost, or another increase by driving bang-on the speed limit ? No.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I didn't really need to; your driving is "impaired" by lots of things - tiredness, the sniffles, weather, darkness, etc. It's about a combination of common sense and the law.
Would I be OK with a 3% increase ? Yes.
Is there a similar increase between driving at 60mph and 50mph ? Yes - I would hazard a guess even more so. Do you view that as "acceptable", or do you drive at 50mph all the time ?
Would I combine that 3% increase with a 4% increase because of tiredness, or a 9% increase because of frost, or another increase by driving bang-on the speed limit ? No.
Good God Man... answer the question.
If a doctor told you that after 3 shandies you were not fit to drive.. would you ignore him/her?
I know your answer is yes.. and it shows a disregard for others lives.
You may feel it is OK... I strongly disagree!
I think a person's live is worth more than a shandy!
But you go ahead and do your thing!
... end of discussion!0 -
Good God Man... answer the question.
If a doctor told you that after 3 shandies you were not fit to drive.. would you ignore him/her?
Er, I did.Liam Byrne wrote: »Would I be OK with a 3% increase ? Yes.I know your answer is yes.. and it shows a disregard for others lives.
You may feel it is OK... I strongly disagree!
I think a person's live is worth more than a shandy!
But you go ahead and do your thing!
... end of discussion!
What would you say if a driving professional told you that you were, say, 1.3 times as likely to have an accident at 60mph as distinct from 40mph ?
Would you drive everywhere at 40mph ?
Or does driving at 60mph show a "disregard for others lives" ?
I think a person's life is worth more than ten minutes of your time....do you agree ?
But you go ahead and do your thing!0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Firstly, I missed your post in the middle of the others; I did not delberately ignore it.
Then why havent you read the post this time!Secondly, I've given you an EXACT calculation in how I came up with that figure; what makes your calculation supercede mine to that point where you claim that it's "unsubstantiated" ?
If you can see a flaw in my calculation, then by all means point it out. I'm simply using your statistics and calculating in a different way.
Have pointed it out. you continue to ignore.If there's a flaw, I'll 100% accept it. But I can't see one.
Because you havent read my correction.
No I did not!!! For the second time I estimated that 2% of all journeys were taken by a driver who had a drink taken (or two or ten).You said that 2% of accidents / 6 accidents have the minimum level of alcohol.Er, no, it's 2%.
I think you know that was a Typo ( i clearly based my calculation on the 2%) but by all means be anal.35% of the TOTAL deaths.
2% of drivers have the minimum drink; those 2% are FIRSTLY 2% of THE TOTAL DEATHS, and SECONDLY ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE 35% - people with drink taken.
So - taking your figures and applying them correctly :
33% of TOTAL DEATHS are caused by more than the minimum drink ONLY
2% of TOTAL DEATHS are caused by the minimum - legal - drink ONLY
65% of TOTAL DEATHS are caused by ZERO DRINK
So - if you decide to move from zero drink to the minimum drink, you've increased your chances by either 2/65 or 2/67, which is 0.03, or 3%, NOT 33/2 or 35/2, which gave you your figure.
Oh God heres the post where I corrected you initially. Any problems let me know:Im not saying that. Please read my text more carefully:
2% of all motor journeys are driven by someone who has taken alcohol.
(any amount)
That means if you counted every car that passed by a particular point in street over 24 hours, that one in fifty cars would be driven by someone who had taken a drink (at least). That is 2% (correction). My estimation if you think its higher no problem. This 2% are responsible for 35% of all road fatalities (in 2003) therefore you are 35/2=14.5 times more likely to die driving if you have drink in you.
If you say one third of all drivers with drink on them are in the 50-80mg range (this is generous). Then they account for one third of 2% or .66% of all drivers. The amount of deaths in this range is 13 which is 3.5 % of all deaths.
So .66% of drivers in this category are responsible for 3.5% of total deaths. Therfore 6 times more likely than the average driver and comparing it to the sober driver figure amout 10 times more likely.
!LMAO!!!! I'd almost prefer to be a drunk driver; it'd mean that I was less irresponsible
Irreesponsible for promoting drink driving by keeping the limit at 80mg. I agree completely.
Rememebr if you drive at over 50mg in your blood you will be a drunk driver.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I didn't really need to; your driving is "impaired" by lots of things - tiredness, the sniffles, weather, darkness, etc. It's about a combination of common sense and the law.
Would I be OK with a 3% increase ? Yes.
Is there a similar increase between driving at 60mph and 50mph ? Yes - I would hazard a guess even more so. Do you view that as "acceptable", or do you drive at 50mph all the time ?
Would I combine that 3% increase with a 4% increase because of tiredness, or a 9% increase because of frost, or another increase by driving bang-on the speed limit ? No.
Sorry to intrude. (From a survey in Germany 1992) In fatalities if 60-80mg of alcohol in the drivers blood 70% of the accidents is due to alcohol 30% to otherv factors (tiredness, flu, bad luck, etc).
That means you are 70/30 = 233% more likely to be involved in a fatal accident if you have between 60-80 mg alcohol. Theres your percentage.
230% more likely to die/kill with 60-80 mg than with no alcohol.
That means if your 3 shandies or 3 slow pints puts you in the 60-80 range you are indeed putting peoples lives in danger by driving.
Also going on the piss with your car in the car park and your keys in your pocket is extremely irresponsible. A drunk can always make "the decision" to
drive home or be persuaded to give a lift by his mates.
If you cant hold your drink leave the car at home. Always make decisions about driving or not driving when you are sober. Do not put yourself in a position where driving somewhere you need to go is an option when you have drink on you.0 -
How did they figure out if the accidents were due to alcohol or tiredness/flu etc?0
-
No I did not!!! For the second time I estimated that 2% of all journeys were taken by a driver who had a drink taken (or two or ten).
OK, I can see your angle now. What you are saying is that 2% of people on the road have SOME drink taken, and you're suggesting that 35% of accidents are caused by those 2%, with the remaining 65% caused by the other 98%.If you say one third of all drivers with drink on them are in the 50-80mg range (this is generous).
So, allowing for the confusion earlier (nothing deliberate in the misunderstanding) can I point out 2 things ? Firstly, your 2% is a guess.
Secondly why is this "generous" ? Is it a guess too ? And in what way is it generous ? Because if more than one-third have over 80 mg, it will skew your calculation one way or the other.
So stop guessing and "being generous", and quote some facts.Rememebr if you drive at over 50mg in your blood you will be a drunk driver.
Absolute and utter bull****, and I've reported this. I am NOT a "drunk driver", and have never been. The law says 80mg, and I have stayed well below that. If and when the law changes, I will abide 100% by it. But what you want the law to be does not have any bearing on my being 100% compliant with the current law.
The law is the law. And I will not stand for slander. :mad:0 -
Advertisement
-
Also going on the piss with your car in the car park and your keys in your pocket is extremely irresponsible. A drunk can always make "the decision" to drive home or be persuaded to give a lift by his mates.
This is starting to be annoying, because you are implying something over and above the facts.
Firstly, using the phrase "a drunk" is insulting and inaccurate.
Secondly, I am not influenced in a stupid way by friends, and my friends have more sense.
Thirdly,If you cant hold your drink leave the car at home. Always make decisions about driving or not driving when you are sober. Do not put yourself in a position where driving somewhere you need to go is an option when you have drink on you.
What are you trying to say here ? What relevance does the "if you can't hold your drink" even have in that sentence ?
It's bad enough to be labelled "a drunk" without having someone add the above bull**** to the equation.
What did I say that I did ? Drove to pub (due to there being no public transport) planning - WHILE SOBER - to leave the car there; had a few drinks with friends, got a lift home from a non-drinking friend who had arrived later. LEFT THE CAR THERE - AS PLANNED.
None of my friends are idiotic enough assholes to suggest driving, and even if they were I wouldn't have.
I collected the car the following day AS PLANNED WHEN SOBER.
And you STILL object or cast a slur on that COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE behaviour ?
If you're going to be like that then there's really no point in continuing the conversation at all. :rolleyes:0 -
drunkmonkey wrote: »Spare a thought for your country cousins, there is no public transport, would like us all to walk home on unlit roads in bad weather. That's more of a danger than 2 pints will ever be.
itd be a lot safer a walk if the roads didnt have people driving after "just a few pints"0 -
@Liam Byrne and T Runner in particular:
Take the handbags outside please folks - neither of you are doing either your case or your reputation any favours with your more recent posts on this thread in particular. Chill pill immediately please. This thread is looking like it's on life support but it doesn't mean that I can't or won't penalise anyone who kicks it while it's down.
/mod0 -
nobody is stopping anybody going to the pub. surley they sell something that isn't alcoholic? (or else Ireland is in worse state than I thought)
carpooling is a an option, but that works only on a case by case basis dependent on distance.0 -
What you are saying is that 2% of people on the road have SOME drink taken, and you're suggesting that 35% of accidents are caused by those 2%, with the remaining 65% caused by the other 98%.
This site has some good (well researched) facts about Drink Driving.
http://www.drinkdriving.ie/
Some key statistics cited from it:
• 1 in 5 drivers killed on our roads, where alcohol was present, were under the legal limit when they died.
• 21% of fatal road crashes that happen between 6am and 12 noon are alcohol related.
It could be said that the extent of alcohol consumption in Ireland is a cultural bad habit - many drinkers are literally hung over for a 1/3 of their lives. If people want to drink regularly, they have free will... however drink driving literally means they impose the risk resulting from their impaired perceptions on other people.0 -
Does that distinguish who caused the accident?• 1 in 5 drivers killed on our roads, where alcohol was present, were under the legal limit when they died.
E.g. take a hypothetical. Johnny goes out to dinner, has a glass of champaigne and a Bailey's cake with it. Let's say he takes the road with a .025 BAC. Driving down a regional road, at 40MPH, he gets into a head on collision with Mad Mikey (sober), who was driving at 80MPH on the wrong side trying to beat his fastest time. They both die.
Does that accident make it into your statistic?
How related? Does, for example, a sober driver who hits another road user of any category whos been drinking (pedestrian, cyclist etc)? "Alcohol related" is a weasel term.• 21% of fatal road crashes that happen between 6am and 12 noon are alcohol related.
And if we assume, generously, that this 21% of accidents are caused by drivers with alcohol, and that those accidents were caused by the alcohol and not by bad luck or tiredness or general carelessness or other factors that affect sober people too (remember none of this is explicitly stated in your post at least) how many of those drivers were:
A)Had BACs between 0 and 50 exclusive?
B)between 50 and 80?
C)Were over 80?
D)Were many times over 80?0 -
Oh and 2 more problems with that site:
- Its run by the Road Safety Authority, who have a vested interest in creating more, and more complicated road law. These are the same people that also want annual NCTs, a Canadian style byzantine driver licensing system, with a litany of tests and years of restrictions, and God knows what else.
- The first fact alone is
Drink driving is a male problem.
nonsense: because women don't drink and drive? That must be good news for one Mary Carberry then.
But hey, who needs facts like that when hyperbole will suffice and sway the masses? Male bashing also seems to be quite the popular pasttime among RSA mandarins.
0 -
Given some of the views posted here, can I ask a genuine question of all those people who point out - fairly validly - the advantage of "even one life" being saved by changing the law, but who go on - unfairly, OMHO - to castigate people for obeying the current law.....
If the stats support that "even one life" can be saved by lowering the max speed limit by 10mph, would you support that change as vociferously ?
And - despite the fact that the current law allows you to do 50 / 60 / 70, depending on location, do any of you follow the equivalent "zero tolerance" that you're proposing and drive 10mph below that already ?
As I said, just asking....not "baiting" or anything - just wondering whether the same opinions apply, and if not, why not ?0 -
they do but LVA could take a more responsible attitude by not charging over the odds for soft drinks and non alcoholic beer.Mal-Adjusted wrote: »nobody is stopping anybody going to the pub. surley they sell something that isn't alcoholic? (or else Ireland is in worse state than I thought)
carpooling is a an option, but that works only on a case by case basis dependent on distance.0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »So, allowing for the confusion earlier (nothing deliberate in the misunderstanding) can I point out 2 things ? Firstly, your 2% is a guess.
Secondly why is this "generous" ? Is it a guess too ? And in what way is it generous ? Because if more than one-third have over 80 mg, it will skew your calculation one way or the other.
So stop guessing and "being generous", and quote some facts.
Look at post 306 for some facts.
Alcohol was responsible for 70% of all deaths in Germany in 1992 when the driver was between 60-80mg of alcohol. This means that 30% of deaths would have happenned anyway at this level but 70% were due to alcohol.Absolute and utter bull****, and I've reported this. I am NOT a "drunk driver", and have never been. The law says 80mg, and I have stayed well below that. If and when the law changes, I will abide 100% by it. But what you want the law to be does not have any bearing on my being 100% compliant with the current law.
The law is the law. And I will not stand for slander. :mad:
I said you will be breaking the Law. The implication being that the when the law is changed to 50mg you will be breaking it.Liam Byrne wrote: »This is starting to be annoying, because you are implying something over and above the facts.
Firstly, using the phrase "a drunk" is insulting and inaccurate.
No its accurate. In this context a drunk is someone "under the influence of drink."Secondly, I am not influenced in a stupid way by friends, and my friends have more sense.
Your friends have sense when their pissed? Does alcohol not affect them the way if affects other people?Thirdly,
What are you trying to say here ? What relevance does the "if you can't hold your drink" even have in that sentence ?
If you go to a pub with the intention of driving home but cant control your drinking enough to stop then you cant hold your drink. The drinking culture bravado interpretation of "holding your drink" is non-sensical.What did I say that I did ? Drove to pub (due to there being no public transport) planning - WHILE SOBER - to leave the car there; had a few drinks with friends, got a lift home from a non-drinking friend who had arrived later. LEFT THE CAR THERE - AS PLANNED.
This was what you said: Looks like you didnt plan anything bar a quiet night. You werent able to stop the few points from turning into a "session" and you had your car keys in your pocket and your car in the driveway. You may have got a lift home but it was not planned before you drove to the pub.
Your previous quote:Liam Byrne wrote: »..... and if a planned quiet night did turn into a session I'd just leave the car in the pub car park and go back the following evening for it - just like I did last weekend.None of my friends are idiotic enough assholes to suggest driving, and even if they were I wouldn't have.
People say and do idiotic things when pissed. That incluses you and your mates.
Alcohol is a drug: it adversely affects your decision making process. The more you drink the worse it gets. Please dont claim you are immune.
How many people who killed someone or themselves driving home from a pub polatic had gone out to the pub with good intentions about having 1 or t2 pints?
I repeat if there is any chance that you are going to get drunk in a pub it is completely irresponsible to have the car at the pub and the keys in your pocket no matter who you are.I collected the car the following day AS PLANNED WHEN SOBER.
And you STILL object or cast a slur on that COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE behaviour ?
Again this is what you said:Liam Byrne wrote: ».....and if a planned quiet night did turn into a session I'd just leave the car in the pub car park and go back the following evening for it - just like I did last weekend.
You had a planned quiet night which ended in a session. You did not plan responsibly. Do you think the chances of driving home complely drunk are higher when the car is at the pub because or when the car is at home?
If there was any chance that the couple of pints would turn into a session then the responsible thing to do is leave the car at home.Liam Byrne wrote: »If the stats support that "even one life" can be saved by lowering the max speed limit by 10mph, would you support that change as vociferously ?
And - despite the fact that the current law allows you to do 50 / 60 / 70, depending on location, do any of you follow the equivalent "zero tolerance" that you're proposing and drive 10mph below that already ?
As I said, just asking....not "baiting" or anything - just wondering whether the same opinions apply, and if not, why not ?
If you think the speed limits should be lowered then by all means open another thread on it. Speeding is a killer in Irish roads. Very true but nothing to do with this thread.
Drink driving is also a killer and relevant to this thread drink driving between 50-80mg is a killer.
It has been shown that if you are involved in a fatal accident with between 60-80mg of alcohol there is a 70% liklihood that the alcohol was the cause.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement