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
-
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.
IF the law is changed; therefore the word is "would".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.
Agreed, however nothing I posted indicated that that was the case.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.
You had a planned quiet night which ended in a session. You did not plan responsibly.
I've crossed out the absolute rubbish and 100% misrepresentation that was in that post, because despite quoting the relevant part of the post, you've 100% ignored it - can I ask why you did this ?Liam Byrne wrote: »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.
What part of BOTH "AS PLANNED" did you not get ?Liam Byrne wrote: »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?
No. I don't drive "completely drunk" - FACT. 100% irrefutable. There's no "false bravado" here, so don't accuse me of it.Liam Byrne wrote: »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.
No. The responsible thing is simply not to drive home. So I'd appreciate it if you would avoid suggesting that the irresponsibility is related to other planned decisions.
Planning a one-way drive - to drive there and not drive home - is NOT irresponsible.
Firstly you're incorrectly suggesting that this was not the plan - which is 100% misrepresentation, since I said this in the post.
And you're ALSO twisting my statement about the IF by bolding both ends of it....the correct highlighting would be :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
....which has been reported.
I'd have more respect for your points if you didn't resort to misrepresentation and incorrect selective quoting.0 -
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?
You either can't read or you're deliberately misquoting someone. Quit it.0 -
Senario. Guards at accident two cars involved both drivers dead. The sober driver and other driver with 1 drink taken are tested. Witness says both were speeding. Who gets the blame... On assumptions the driver who had the drink taken. That's what happens every day. I posted earlier that no one is prevented from drinking and driving. If you get caught or involved in an accident you will be by assumption to be at fault irrespective of the circumstances. Just like the smoking and the social shift from that. If you remember the case brought by bar staff that used to work in smokey pubs ongoing complaints to publicans about work conditions, they were ignored and not taken seriously.... Look at the outcome. Look at new offy hours and booze restrictions in supermarkets selling times. For what you might ask!!!!!!!0
-
What part of BOTH "AS PLANNED" did you not get ?
Was referring to your original quote I was not commented on your subsequent quote where you backtracked.No. I don't drive "completely drunk" - FACT. 100% irrefutable. There's no "false bravado" here, so don't accuse me of it.
Please read the post FGS, I didnt accuse you of anything . I asked you this: Is there a greater chance of driving your car drunk if the car is at home or if the car is with you while youre on the session in the pub? Please stop dodging the questions.
I stand but my opinion. Going on the piss with your keys in the pocket and the car outside is irresponsible. It isn irresponsibe becuase there is always the chance that you will drive when pissed. People dont behave responsibly when they are drunk end of. Far, far safer with the car out of reach.No. The responsible thing is simply not to drive home. So I'd appreciate it if you would avoid suggesting that the irresponsibility is related to other planned decisions.
Do you always act responsibly when youre on a session? Does excessive drink not affect your ability to make responsible judgements/decisions like everybody else? Or are you immune to the affects of alcohol?
It is irresponsible to put yourself in a position where you have a greater chance of driving your car while drunk. E.g when you are drunk in a pub, the keys are in your pocket and the car is outside.
It is both irresponsible and illegal to drive your car when drunk.Planning a one-way drive - to drive there and not drive home - is NOT irresponsible......Firstly you're incorrectly suggesting that this was not the plan - which is 100% misrepresentation, since I said this in the post.
So the post below does not mean you planned to go to the pub have a quiet few and then drive home? It means you planned to go to the pub go on the session and get a lift home? it is this part thats confusing me "if a planned quiet night did turn into a session "Liam Byrne wrote: »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.0 -
bayviewclose wrote: »they do but LVA could take a more responsible attitude by not charging over the odds for soft drinks and non alcoholic beer.
agreed0 -
Advertisement
-
Was referring to your original quote I was not commented on your subsequent quote where you backtracked.
I did not backtrack, and please do not suggest that I did; the mods have enough to do without me having to report another spin.
In an effort to be fair, and given your previous "apparent difficulties" understanding what I posted as it was intended, can I ask you to please post the "original quote" and the supposed "backtrack" that you are referring to ? I'll clear it up for you in an instant if I can see what you're on about.Please read the post FGS, I didnt accuse you of anything . I asked you this: Is there a greater chance of driving your car drunk if the car is at home or if the car is with you while youre on the session in the pub? Please stop dodging the questions.
I did not dodge the question. I answered no, as is blatantly obvious from the following extract from the reply:Liam Byrne wrote: »No. I don't drive "completely drunk" - FACT. 100% irrefutableI stand but my opinion. Going on the piss with your keys in the pocket and the car outside is irresponsible.
Your opinion earlier completely ignored the planning. And I stand by my opinion - using the car to get to the pub is not the problem; driving it home after drinking above the limit is.
We'll just have to agree to differ on this.Do you always act responsibly when youre on a session? Does excessive drink not affect your ability to make responsible judgements/decisions like everybody else? Or are you immune to the affects of alcohol?
Well, I don't make crazy ones, for a start. If I've had more than two, I leave the car where it is. Drinking doesn't affect your ability to count - at least on a binary "less or more than 2" level.It is irresponsible to put yourself in a position where you have a greater chance of driving your car while drunk. E.g when you are drunk in a pub, the keys are in your pocket and the car is outside.
There is no "greater chance"; If I have more than two, I leave the car where it is.It is both irresponsible and illegal to drive your car when drunk.
Agreed 100%. Not even relevant to the discussion, because - despite you using the the word "drunk" in a different context earlier, in this case - since you're including the word "illegal" - you're obviously referring to the current legal limit.So the post below does not mean you planned to go to the pub have a quiet few and then drive home? It means you planned to go to the pub go on the session and get a lift home? it is this part thats confusing me "if a planned quiet night did turn into a session "
No, it quite plainly doesn't mean that; leaving aside the fact that the night I was referring to was my birthday and therefore some form of a "session" was always on the cards, the remaining text in that sentence was perfectly clear, and I have no idea why you feel the need to ask this again :rolleyes: There is no confusion whatsoever. That part that you quoted was related completely to the "IF" at the start of the sentence.
I'd also refer you to the content of the mod's post above, which indicates that there is absolutely no scope for confusion in what I posted.
And I'll also stand over my statement; I do not drive drunk, I make plans if I'm going on a session; and (separately, on an "unplanned" night) if - after 2 drinks - it seems worth staying put, I'll organise another way home and won't go back on that. Two drinks is not too much drink for "another drink = no driving home" to register. The car can wait til the following day or evening.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »I did not dodge the question. I answered no, as is blatantly obvious from the following extract from the reply:
Who is more likely to drive their car home from the pub pissed?
a) somone whos car is at home in their driveway whil;e they are drunk in the pub.
b) someone whos car is outside the pub with keys in their pocket while they are drunk in the pub.
??????????????????????Well, I don't make crazy ones, for a start. If I've had more than two, I leave the car where it is. Drinking doesn't affect your ability to count - at least on a binary "less or more than 2" level.
So if nearly everyone on a particular night drove to the pub intending to go on the piss and leave the car in the carpark then nobody would drive home? I dont think so. Why? You dont think like a sober person when you are drunk.if - after 2 drinks - it seems worth staying put, I'll organise another way home and won't go back on that. Two drinks is not too much drink for "another drink = no driving home" to register. The car can wait til the following day or evening.
How do you know you wont go back on that? You will be drunk, not thinking rationally. You cannot say for certain you wont make that irrational decision when you are drunk. The fact that you havent done it before is not proof that you wont make the drunken decision at one point. If you think you can then you do not understand alcohol and the way it warps peoples judgement.0 -
How do you know you wont go back on that? You will be drunk, not thinking rationally. You cannot say for certain you wont make that irrational decision when you are drunk. The fact that you havent done it before is not proof that you wont make the drunken decision at one point. If you think you can then you do not understand alcohol and the way it warps peoples judgement.
OK, I'm getting sick of this, particularly as you haven't retracted or substantiated your "backtrack" claim from earlier (probably because you have no basis for it).
Some quick points before I consign this thread to history and hit the "ignore user" button.
Firstly, I don't get "drunk" that often.
Secondly, I make the decision and stick to it.
Thirdly, whatever about me not saying something for certain what I'd do, you certainly can't say what I'd do, because you don't know me
Fourthly, the "you do not understand alcohol" is a joke; I don't eat or drink things that I don't understand, and I do not let it override important life-changing decisions.
Maybe I can say the above because I do understand and respect alcohol, and don't get drunk that often, and almost never get very drunk, because I don't really see the appeal of it.
If I'm unique, fair enough; but I'm ending this discussion now, because I am certainly not going to have a random stranger on a bulletin board telling me what I will and will not do after a few drinks.
Some people stab or shoot or rape or beat random people when drunk, too; and I can categorically stay that I would never do that either.
And that, good sir, is an ABSOLUTE FACT.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Thirdly, whatever about me not saying something for certain what I'd do, you certainly can't say what I'd do, because you don't know me
Ive never tried to say what youd do. Ive said what alcohol does to peoples judgement decision making and morals.Fourthly, the "you do not understand alcohol" is a joke; I don't eat or drink things that I don't understand, and I do not let it override important life-changing decisions.
This shows that you dont understand it. When one is drunk one is not as concerned about morals as when one is sober. So nobody can be absolutely certain that they will behave in a morally acceptable way when theyre drunk. They may have the best intentions when they are sober but they are not making these decisions when they are sober. That is the whole point and that is why you dont understand it. There is one set of moral rules for a sober person and another (or no) set for the same person who is drunk.Maybe I can say the above because I do understand and respect alcohol, and don't get drunk that often, and almost never get very drunk, because I don't really see the appeal of it.
Sorry but in previous posts you were talking about when a few quiet drinks turning into a session youd leave the car in the pub carpark. Having a session is getting very drunk is it not?If I'm unique, fair enough; but I'm ending this discussion now, because I am certainly not going to have a random stranger on a bulletin board telling me what I will and will not do after a few drinks.
Im not telling you what you will and will not do, I am saying that alcohol makes people act less responsibly, so one cant say for certain that one would obey ones sober morals when one is drunk. Ever did something you regretted when drunk? If so, Why didnt you stop your self?
So the simple fact in the general sense is that it is more likely that someone will drive home in his car after a session if his car is in the car park of the keys are in his pocket than if the car is at home and inaccessible.
That is obviously true and clearly you cant admit this because it doesnt suit your position.
It is also true (from a German survey in 92 reference post 306) that if you die behind the wheel in a fatal accident with between 60-80 mg of alcohol in your system the liklihood is 70% that the accident was due to the effects of the alcohol.
This means that you are 2.3 times more likely to cause a fatal accident at this level than if you were sober. The new legislation will put the 50-80mg on the ilegal side of the Law which is clearly where it belongs.0 -
Ive never tried to say what youd do. Ive said what alcohol does to peoples judgement decision making and morals.
When one is drunk one is not as concerned about morals as when one is sober. So nobody can be absolutely certain that they will behave in a morally acceptable way when theyre drunk. They may have the best intentions when they are sober but they are not making these decisions when they are sober. That is the whole point and that is why you dont understand it. There is one set of moral rules for a sober person and another (or no) set for the same person who is drunk.
I'll repeat : I will not murder, rape, beat or rob someone - drunk or sober. So why would you assume that I'll change my stance that driving over an acceptable limit (or lower, depending on other factors) is unacceptable ?Sorry but in previous posts you were talking about when a few quiet drinks turning into a session youd leave the car in the pub carpark. Having a session is getting very drunk is it not?
No. Having a session is enjoying a good few drinks and being over the limit. I see no appeal in "getting very drunk", and it always stuns me when I see people falling around the place - it's pretty sad.Im not telling you what you will and will not do, I am saying that alcohol makes people act less responsibly, so one cant say for certain that one would obey ones sober morals when one is drunk.
Do I need to repeat the inbuilt morals again ? If your statement were true, I'd be likely to murder someone because the "moral when sober" wouldn't apply; can you not accept that some people's inbuilt morals are strong enough ?So the simple fact in the general sense is that it is more likely that someone will drive home in his car after a session if his car is in the car park of the keys are in his pocket than if the car is at home and inaccessible.
It's more possible, but not more likely.That is obviously true and clearly you cant admit this because it doesnt suit your position.
Incorrect. Yes, it's more possible - but not more likely. Similarly, it's more possible for me to murder someone if I have a knife in my hand, but it's not more likely.
Simply having the equipment available does not make it "more likely". It's like saying that a man is "more likely" to rape a woman if he's not a eunuch.The new legislation will put the 50-80mg on the ilegal side of the Law which is clearly where it belongs.
....in your opinion.0 -
Advertisement
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »It's more possible, but not more likely.
In the general sense (i.e. not referring to you, specifically), I would argue that it must be more likely.
If we take 100,000 cases where people have their car at home and are out for enough drinks to put them over the limit, how many are going to drive home? There'll be maybe some exceptional cases, where the partner drives in and the drinker insists on taking the wheel home, or where someone else hands over their keys and asks them to drive, but I'm sure we can agree that its going to be a low number.
If we take another 100,000 cases, where people have their car with them and have a session (planned or unplanned), do you honestly and genuinely believe that there won't be any more of them getting behind the wheel then the exceptional cases from the former case?
If you don't believe this, then you have to accept that people who bring their car with them to the pub are more likely to drive home over the limit then people who don't bring their car with them to the pub.
Put a different way, it would say that on average, someone leaving their car at home doesn't reduce the odds that they will drive over the limit. Put differently...if all of those drunk drivvers left their cars at home, they would still find a way to drive home even though they didn't have their cars with them.
I'm not suggesting, for a moment, that the argument based on this is not flawed...but the notion that leaving the car at home doesn't lower the odds of driving over the limit is a very strange thing to be defending, particularly when the argument is being made about the general case, and not aboud any specific individual.0 -
In the general sense (i.e. not referring to you, specifically), I would argue that it must be more likely.
In a general sense (not referring to me specifically), I'd probably have to agree, given the lack of common sense around alcohol.
However, can I point out that all of the posts by T-runner appeared to be asked me a question, specifically, e.g.How do you know you wont go back on that? You will be drunk, not thinking rationally. You cannot say for certain you wont make that irrational decision when you are drunk.
If those were generic "yous", then fair enough, however I didn't think they were because of the earlier references to my specific night out.
I obviously can't speak for anyone else; particularly not those whose idea of a "great night out" :rolleyes: is to be staggering up a street puking the guts up, or not remembering who they shagged or how they got home.
I will point out, however, that that is precisely why the law needs to be fair and accurate.
i.e. if there was no legal limit, I would still be unlikely to drive at anything much off the current limit, which appears to be 2 pints over 3 hours.
Surprisingly, the numbers would seem to add up to 7 pints over a - say - 13-hour day at a wedding, after which I don't think I'd even dream of driving.
If I'm a complete exception, then fair enough.0 -
WOW, 343 posts on new Blood alcohol limit!!. Easiest solution, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!. but the Irish love their drink. As a Kid my father always drove when drunk, drink always clouds your judgement, well he drove us as a family into a ditch once.
And for those who drink 15 pints, sleep for 4 hours and then drive to work... remember you are still over the limit!. it takes over an hour to clear a pint from your system.
There are been hundreds of people killed in Ireland bu drunk drivers. So no drinking and driving..0 -
Looks like this issue has been long-fingered again! Mid 2011 before the limits can be lowered - more than a year and a half away!
http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/1106/drink.html
The proposed new drink-driving limits will not be introduced before mid-2011 because the equipment used to test breath samples from drivers must be replaced.
The Medical Bureau of Road Safety has confirmed that the breath-testing machines used by gardaí cannot be recalibrated to the new limits and will have to be replaced.
Speaking on Morning Ireland the bureau's Denis Cusack says that it would have taken eight to nine months to recalibrate the old breathalysers.
My belief is it will not happen even then. There are more and more voices speaking out against lowering this limit. The latest comes from eminent heart surgeon Maurice Nelligan in the Irish Times the other day.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2009/1103/1224257958876.html
We have a problem enforcing the laws we already have. It is highly questionable as to whether in the midst of all their other duties in addressing crime in this country that the gardaí should spend large amounts of their time mounting road blocks to catch the odd drinking motorist. This particularly applies to the road blocks in the mornings, which probably contribute little to overall enforcement but arouse considerable resentment
We Irish are convivial by nature and prohibition in whatever guise is not welcome. Horace wrote, “ Nulla placere diu nec vivere carmina possunt quae scribuntur aquae potoribus” or “No verse can give lasting pleasure if written by drinkers of water ”.
This is exactly what happened in Canada a few years ago. The debate on lowering limits raged and the more educated people became about the subject the less they were likely to want limits reduced. Two years ago the Quebec governemt wanted to lower the limit but it was defeated by two opposition parties0 -
Do you I have this correct that given there is small amounts of alcohol in products like mouthwash etc you could be over the limit where there is a limit of 20mg for learner drivers. Heard that theory being peddled before on the airwaves.0
-
bayviewclose wrote: »Do you I have this correct that given there is small amounts of alcohol in products like mouthwash etc you could be over the limit where there is a limit of 20mg for learner drivers. Heard that theory being peddled before on the airwaves.
It is my understanding that there is quite a bit of nervousness within the Dept of Justice about introducing the lower limits for learner drivers. It's very difficult to enforce, using breath testing equipment which is not very accurate. It's interesting that all of the main countries which have the 80mg limits are English speaking (UK, US, Canada, New Zealand) and have similar legal systems to ours.
Australia has had a bit of a nightmare enforcing the 50mg limits - one of the reasons their near-neighbours New Zealand has resisted lowering theirs. See stories below:
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22552418-3102,00.html
MORE police officers yesterday admitted faking random breath tests to meet "political" quotas as the police and the CMC announced a joint investigation.
The Courier-Mail revealed yesterday that officers routinely manipulated SD-400 alcohol testers to generate fake negative readings so they can meet a quota of three million breath tests a year.
Police claim they are too overworked to meet the quota and admit the practice makes it appear Queensland roads are safer than they really are.
Below was a big story in Australia earlier this year. Basically, the police tried to breath test everyone leaving a music festival similar to our own Electric Picnic. The result was an 8-hour traffic jam with people missing planes, ferries etc. This kind of thing could easily happen here if the lower limits were heavily enforced. The festival organisers threatned to pull out over the heavy-handed tactics and the Prime Minister became involved.
Fancy an 8-hour checkpoint anyone?
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/01/02/47381_tasmania-news.html
FALLS Festival founder Simon Daly will meet Acting Premier Lara Giddings next week to discuss the future of the event.
The meeting comes in the wake of the New Year's Day breath-testing debacle.
Mr Daly flew to Hobart yesterday to deal with the fallout from the testing blitz, which left thousands of festival patrons stuck in queues at the Marion Bay site for up to eight hours. Many missed flights, work and other commitments as a result.0 -
vinylrules wrote: »Looks like this issue has been long-fingered again! Mid 2011 before the limits can be lowered - more than a year and a half away!
Almost make you wish we had ministers who would do the research, get the information from all involved before a big overblown announcement.
This is all purely a political attention grab or misdirection from something else! Maybe Dempsey wanted some browny points in case an election was called a few weeks ago!0 -
Well hear its going to be two years before the law in acted. But the 2omg limit seems ridiculous.
I think if they are going to be that stringent they should tackle the speed limits and quality of lighting on the back roads.0 -
I'm guessing your father was WAY over what our current laws consider safe ... which would explain the ditch thing.WOW, 343 posts on new Blood alcohol limit!!. Easiest solution, DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE!. but the Irish love their drink. As a Kid my father always drove when drunk, drink always clouds your judgement, well he drove us as a family into a ditch once.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.
Gosh, you're absolutely right! If they'd said "Drink driving is predominantly a male problem" or "largely a male problem they'd be correct. But stating as a fact that Drink driving is a "male problem" is just plain wrong. How can we take any of their "facts" seriously when they come up with this sort of stuff? Also check out the "Science Behind Just One Drink Impairs Driving where they say... "just as one drink leads to another, one impairment leads to another". Just as one drink leads to another? What kind of science is that? There are plenty of people who can have a drink without it leading to another and another? Junk science!0 -
Advertisement
-
Its as crazy as the restrictions relating to drink sales in supermarkets. What's that all about. What difference does it make when I buy it. If I am of leg drinking age. More government involvement in our lives0
-
vinylrules wrote: »Gosh, you're absolutely right! If they'd said "Drink driving is predominantly a male problem" or "largely a male problem they'd be correct. But stating as a fact that Drink driving is a "male problem" is just plain wrong. How can we take any of their "facts" seriously when they come up with this sort of stuff?
There are some countries where in relative terms drink driving is not a problem.
The amount of female drink drivers may be low enough to be not problematic.
You may get a few female drinkers but there are many many more male drinkers. Thus the numbers of males may be clearly problematic for a road safety authority but the number of females might be so low as to be considered not problematic overall.
Dont lose the message in the pedantics. We all know that males drink and drive more. Are we males mature enough to face up to the reasons why? Or are we so immature that we whinge when the females (with the non-problematic figures) arent blamed enough.
!Also check out the "Science Behind Just One Drink Impairs Driving where they say... "just as one drink leads to another, one impairment leads to another". Just as one drink leads to another? What kind of science is that? There are plenty of people who can have a drink without it leading to another and another? Junk science
Whats wrong with you? Everybody knows that one drink leads to another. What is the proportion of people in Ireland who go to the pub and have one drink?
The fact that some people can leave it after one is not relevant. If drink was so addictive that it was not possible to leave it at one then surely it would not be legal to drink at all.
Are you saying that one drink does not lead to another? Absolute rubbish.0 -
I'm guessing your father was WAY over what our current laws consider safe ... which would explain the ditch thing.
If you have 60-80 mg in your blood and die at the wheel in a fatal accident then there is a 70% chance that this was due to the alcohol in your system.
Post 306 has the link to the German study which arrived at this figure.
That means if thsi posters Dad was 20mg under the current limit "the ditch thing" was probably due to the alcohol he had consumed.0 -
Where is all this rubbish going to stop, why don't we just reduce the speed limit to 30k on all roads, how many lives would that save?? how many fatal accidents could be put into the bracket of the driver doing 30-80k??
I seen all the rubbish written in this thread and others, and nothing has convinced me that changing the limit is going to have any effect on our road fatalities0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »In a general sense (not referring to me specifically), I'd probably have to agree, given the lack of common sense around alcohol.
So were agreed a person who brings his car and keys to the pub and drinks over the limit is increasing his/her chances of driving drunk and therefore acting irresponsible.In the general sense (i.e. not referring to you, specifically), I would argue that it must be more likely.
.........
I'm not suggesting, for a moment, that the argument based on this is not flawed...but the notion that leaving the car at home doesn't lower the odds of driving over the limit is a very strange thing to be defending, particularly when the argument is being made about the general case, and not aboud any specific individual.
Id agree with this. This point has some relevance to the overall argument that reducing the limit will reduce the deaths. This is based on how the legal limit affects how many people will drink under the limit and drive.
With the new limit people will either drink 0 or 1 as "safe" before driving from the pub (if theyve brought the car intending to drive home).
The old limit the "safe" amount was 1 to 2.
A person is less likely to drink the next pint (getting a "lip") in the 0 or 1 pint taken range than in the 2 pint taken range.
A driver taking the irrational decision to take a third pint with the current limit
generally makes this decision due to the alcohol in his system. He gets the "feel good" factor and wants to stay a bit longer and risks the 3rd pint. He might at this stage decide not to drive home or he might decide to risk it on 3 pints. Clearly in either case the risks of drink driving have increased.
With the new limit the driver realises that 1 pint only is "safe". Hopefully if hes driving he wont drink at all but if he has one pint he is less likely to have as strtong an urge for the second than he would be to have for the third if (he perceived two as safe as with current limit).
Im not explaining it very elegantly but the new limit should also reduce the amount of drink driving by drivers going to a pub who did not intend to be over the limit.
ie it will not only reduce the amount of drivers driving in the 50-80 range but also reduce the drivers to some degree in higher ranges.0 -
Where is all this rubbish going to stop, why don't we just reduce the speed limit to 30k on all roads, how many lives would that save?? how many fatal accidents could be put into the bracket of the driver doing 30-80k??
I seen all the rubbish written in this thread and others, and nothing has convinced me that changing the limit is going to have any effect on our road fatalities
The proof is in a link to a German study in post 306.
If you die at the wheel with 50-80mg of alcohol in your system then the probability is 70% that the crash was due to the alcohol you had taken.
If you think the speed limits should be reduced more then you should open another thread for this. If you are 70% more likely to kill someone or yourself in the 50-80 mg range is it really that much to ask not to drink and drive?0 -
The proof is in a link to a German study in post 306.
If you die at the wheel with 50-80mg of alcohol in your system then the probability is 70% that the crash was due to the alcohol you had taken.
If you think the speed limits should be reduced more then you should open another thread for this. If you are 70% more likely to kill someone or yourself in the 50-80 mg range is it really that much to ask not to drink and drive?
Look isn;t the logic the same for speed limits as drink driving, in fact speed is the determining factor in a lot more accidents than alchol. Would you like to see all speed limits reduced to 30k?? If not why not??0 -
Look isn;t the logic the same for speed limits as drink driving, in fact speed is the determining factor in a lot more accidents than alchol. Would you like to see all speed limits reduced to 30k?? If not why not??
Again this is a thread about drink driving limits not about speeding.
You seem to be advocating no drink drive limit and no speed limit. Is this the case?
I have proven that in the range 60-80 (currently legal) if you have an accident
it is probably due to the alcohol. Simple adjustment dont drink and drive . If you have a problem with this logic please say so.0 -
Look isn;t the logic the same for speed limits as drink driving,
Actually, no, its not. We have differing speed limits based on broadly-defined differing categories of situation. For the logic to be the same for drink-driving would be like saying that there are some situations where its ok to be less sober / more drunk then others.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually, no, its not. We have differing speed limits based on broadly-defined differing categories of situation. For the logic to be the same for drink-driving would be like saying that there are some situations where its ok to be less sober / more drunk then others.
we might have different speed limits for different roads but the fact is that speed accounts for a large proportion of accidents in Ireland, far more than alchol, so by using the logic that some on here use to reduce accidents involving speed we should reduce speed limits, that is of course assuming that the objective of the reduction in alchol limits is to save lives??0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement