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
-
You seem to be advocating no drink drive limit and no speed limit. Is this the case?
Without being personal, can I ask what part of your brain seems to manage to jump from A to Z without recognising anything in-between ?
At no stage whatsoever did Tipp-Man suggest "no" limits for either, so the "You seem to be advocating...." is absolute rubbish!
What they said was that the logic should be similar......more drink = more deaths, and more speed = more deaths.
It's what I proposed earlier; if they were seriously aiming to reduce deaths they'd tackle the worst causes......but it's ridiculous that those who propose dropping an alcohol limit (because they don't drink one or two and drive, therefore it affects others) are firmly opposed to lowering the speed limits.
At no stage did Tipp Man suggest that there should be NO speed limit and NO alcohol limit. So I'd suggest you stop claiming that "he seems to be advocating....", because it's blatantly obvious that he doesn't appear to be anything of the sort.0 -
!
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.
OK, one sentence at a time.
1. There is nothing wrong with me!
2. There are many occasions where people will have just one. Like me, for example after a stressful day's shopping in town last Saturday. Before heading for the bus I decided to nip in for a quiet, relaxing pint, away from the hustle and bustle and a quick read of the magazine I'd just bought. I didn't notice the barmen texting his friends about this amazing guy who came into the bar and had only one drink. Happens all the time! Everybody knows that!
3. Who mentioned pubs? People drink at home, in restuarants, at concerts - pretty much everywhere. Lot's of people have a glass of wine with lunch. I don't know what the proprotion of people who have one drink on occasions is. It's not about having one - it's about the RSA's "scientific" assertion that one drink always leads to another. It doesn't - therefore it isn't a scientific fact.
4. The fact that some people can leave it after one is relevant. It means it's not a scientific fact to state that one drink leads to another.
5. Don't really understand this point. There must be something wrong with me. But then the RSA seem to think that alcohol is so addictive that one drink always leads to another. Science and all that.
6. Yes, I'm saying that one drink doesn't always lead to another. Many people on many occassions have just the one and leave it at that.
6. While I might disagree with many of the points of view or interpretations of statistics in this thread I wouldn't dream of describing any opinion as, "absolute rubbish".0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Without being personal, can I ask what part of your brain seems to manage to jump from A to Z without recognising anything in-between ?
At no stage whatsoever did Tipp-Man suggest "no" limits for either, so the "You seem to be advocating...." is absolute rubbish!
Without being personal do you know the difference betweena question and a statement?What they said was that the logic should be similar......more drink = more deaths, and more speed = more deaths.
And if he feels the speed limits should be lowered he should open a new thread and debate this.It's what I proposed earlier; if they were seriously aiming to reduce deaths they'd tackle the worst causes......
For the umpteenth time when you (general sense) have 60-80 mg of alcohol in your system and die at the wheel in 70% of cases it will be due to the alcohol you have drank. Understand? In 30% of cases it will be due to speeding, the other driver or general bad luck.
So you see having that second beer means that alcohol (and the drunk driver) will be responsible for the killing.but it's ridiculous that those who propose dropping an alcohol limit (because they don't drink one or two and drive, therefore it affects others) are firmly opposed to lowering the speed limits
You might think in this juvenile manner but please dont accuse others of it.
Lets debate the facts please. They show that you are 70% more likely to die at the wheel with 60-80mg alcohol. I have linked to this study. If you disagree with this study result lets see it with some proof and links. (You wont have any)0 -
Without being personal do you know the difference betweena question and a statement?
And if he feels the speed limits should be lowered he should open a new thread and debate this.
For the umpteenth time when you (general sense) have 60-80 mg of alcohol in your system and die at the wheel in 70% of cases it will be due to the alcohol you have drank. Understand? In 30% of cases it will be due to speeding, the other driver or general bad luck.
So you see having that second beer means that alcohol (and the drunk driver) will be responsible for the killing.
You might think in this juvenile manner but please dont accuse others of it.
Lets debate the facts please. They show that you are 70% more likely to die at the wheel with 60-80mg alcohol. I have linked to this study. If you disagree with this study result lets see it with some proof and links. (You wont have any)
Right for the record i don't think the speed limits should be reduced, in fact i think the motorway limits could be increased (after training for a lot of people but thats a different matter)
Right here's the thing, we are talking about all accidents here, not just those accidents involving a driver between 50-80mg. now what is the single biggest cause of accidents in this country?? Is it speed??
If the answer is yes then by your logic we need to reduce the speed limits to save lives, probably down to 30k or something.
do you or do you not accept that speed is a bigger killer than drink?? If the answer to this is yes why are you pursuing a drink drive campaign before a reduce speed limit campaign??
In fact it is fairly likely that a very drunk person could drive without causing an accident if he did not exceed a speed limit of 30k0 -
vinylrules wrote: »OK, one sentence at a time.
1. There is nothing wrong with me!
2. There are many occasions where people will have just one. Like me, for example after a stressful day's shopping in town last Saturday. Before heading for the bus I decided to nip in for a quiet, relaxing pint, away from the hustle and bustle and a quick read of the magazine I'd just bought. I didn't notice the barmen texting his friends about this amazing guy who came into the bar and had only one drink. Happens all the time! Everybody knows that!
3. Who mentioned pubs? People drink at home, in restuarants, at concerts - pretty much everywhere. Lot's of people have a glass of wine with lunch. I don't know what the proprotion of people who have one drink on occasions is. It's not about having one - it's about the RSA's "scientific" assertion that one drink always leads to another. It doesn't - therefore it isn't a scientific fact.
4. The fact that some people can leave it after one is relevant. It means it's not a scientific fact to state that one drink leads to another.
5. Don't really understand this point. There must be something wrong with me. But then the RSA seem to think that alcohol is so addictive that one drink always leads to another. Science and all that.
6. Yes, I'm saying that one drink doesn't always lead to another. Many people on many occassions have just the one and leave it at that.
I think youre labouring over language and losing the message.
Look at this comment: Soft drugs lead on to hard drugs.
This does not mean that soft drugs always lead on to hard drugs does it?
The message is that due to the addictive nature of alcohol if you have one drink you are likely to follow it with another.
If for example you take the average amount of alcohol consumed to be 4 drinks at a go. Then you have 3 drinks that lead to another and one that didint (the last one).
So remember the only drink you take that doesnt lead to anothet is the last one.6. While I might disagree with many of the points of view or interpretations of statistics in this thread I wouldn't dream of describing any opinion as, "absolute rubbish".
A bit of Karma for you as you dismissed the report as Junk Science over your interpretation of a sentence.0 -
Advertisement
-
Right for the record i don't think the speed limits should be reduced, in fact i think the motorway limits could be increased (after training for a lot of people but thats a different matter)
Right here's the thing, we are talking about all accidents here, not just those accidents involving a driver between 50-80mg. now what is the single biggest cause of accidents in this country?? Is it speed??
If the answer is yes then by your logic we need to reduce the speed limits to save lives, probably down to 30k or something.
do you or do you not accept that speed is a bigger killer than drink?? If the answer to this is yes why are you pursuing a drink drive campaign before a reduce speed limit campaign??
In fact it is fairly likely that a very drunk person could drive without causing an accident if he did not exceed a speed limit of 30k
For a person with 60-80mg of alcohol then drink is the killer in 70% of situations.
What do you mean by speed? Do you mean accidents above or below the speed limit?
Can we have some statistics on the deaths caused by speed. What speed were they driving when they died above or below, How many deaths would a reduction in speed limit save? etc. etc
If at the end of this you can show that the speed limits should be reduced to save lives. Good man open a new thread and go for it.
But if the speed limit does need to be reduced it does not mean that the drink driving limits does not need to be reduced.
Do you understand? If you show that the speed limits are too high it does not change the fact that if you have 60-80mg in your system alcohol will be the cause of fatalities in 70% of cases and therefore the limit needs to be dropped.0 -
For a person with 60-80mg of alcohol then drink is the killer in 70% of situations.
What do you mean by speed? Do you mean accidents above or below the speed limit?
Can we have some statistics on the deaths caused by speed. What speed were they driving when they died above or below, How many deaths would a reduction in speed limit save? etc. etc
If at the end of this you can show that the speed limits should be reduced to save lives. Good man open a new thread and go for it.
But if the speed limit does need to be reduced it does not mean that the drink driving limits does not need to be reduced.
Do you understand? If you show that the speed limits are too high it does not change the fact that if you have 60-80mg in your system alcohol will be the cause of fatalities in 70% of cases and therefore the limit needs to be dropped.
You keep going on about 70%, a fact of Irish road deaths is that between 2003 and 2005 3% of driver deaths were between 50-80mg while 27% had no alcholal at all, does that mean that we are better off all have 50-80mg before we drive??0 -
For a person with 60-80mg of alcohol then drink is the killer in 70% of situations.
What do you mean by speed? Do you mean accidents above or below the speed limit?
Can we have some statistics on the deaths caused by speed. What speed were they driving when they died above or below, How many deaths would a reduction in speed limit save? etc. etc
If at the end of this you can show that the speed limits should be reduced to save lives. Good man open a new thread and go for it.
But if the speed limit does need to be reduced it does not mean that the drink driving limits does not need to be reduced.
Do you understand? If you show that the speed limits are too high it does not change the fact that if you have 60-80mg in your system alcohol will be the cause of fatalities in 70% of cases and therefore the limit needs to be dropped.
[/quote]
Excessive/Inappropriate Speed
Speed is at the core of the road safety problem because higher speed reduces the time available to avoid collision and makes the impact in a collision more severe.
Speeding reduces a driver's ability to steer safely around bends or objects in the roadway, extends the distance necessary to stop a vehicle, and increases the distance a vehicle travels while the driver reacts to a dangerous situation.
It's a very simple concept. The faster you drive the less time you have to react to a situation. At 60 mph, a car will travel 88 feet in one second - that's quite a distance in an instant and not a lot of time to react.- Speed is the single largest factor contributing to road deaths in Ireland.
- Over 40% of fatal accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed.
Research and international experience show that the frequency and severity of road crashes tend to decrease with reductions in average speed. A 1km/h decrease in average speed results typically in a 3% decrease in road crash frequency. (Source: European Transport Safety Council)
The higher the impact speed, the greater the likehood of seroius and fatal injury. For car occupants in a collision with an impact speed of 80km/h (50mph), the likelihood of death is about 20 times that at an impact speed of 30km/h (20mph).- A 50 km/h (30mph) impact is equivalent to dropping a car from the top of a 2-storey building
- A 100 km/h (60mph) impact is equivalent to dropping 11 storeys
- A 150 km/h (80mph) crash to almost 30 storeys
Here is a little for you on speeding which is taken from here:http://www.rte.ie/news/features/roadsafety/roadsafetyissues.html#speed
So now seen as though speed is involved in more accidents than drink are you going to answer my question, why are you targetting drink driving over speeding?? After all the statics show that if you are doing 80k you are 20 times more likely to die than if you are doing 30k, so why don't you want to bring the speed limit down to 30k?? Or do you have a different agenda other than saving lives??0 -
-
Without being personal do you know the difference betweena question and a statement?
Yup - here's 2 examples for you :You seem to be advocating no drink drive limit and no speed limit.
Statement. Incorrect. He did not seem to be advocating any such thing.Is this the case?
Question. And rather than backtracking and implying that the question related to "seem", the question translates to "are you (advocating....)"
Because if we read it as you're now trying to suggest, the question reads:
"Are you seeming to advocate no drink drive limit and no speed limit ?"
Which makes absolutely no sense, because he can't control how it seems...."seem" relates to "interpretation".
So you - wrongly - said that he seemed to (statement) and then asked if he actually was (question).0 -
Advertisement
-
You keep going on about 70%, a fact of Irish road deaths is that between 2003 and 2005 3% of driver deaths were between 50-80mg while 27% had no alcholal at all, does that mean that we are better off all have 50-80mg before we drive??
Quite! That just shows the danger of misused statistics. As Dave Allen once remarked, "Get all those sober drivers off the road and leave us drunks to drive about safely". Makes just as much sense as some of the statistics the government spews out in their attemps to convince everyone.0 -
Anyway, this long conversation has become a tad irrelavant in the Irish context. The current limits are here to stay for the forseable future and it's probably no bad thing.
In my opnion the Road Safety Authority and other groups overplayed their hand on the issue and lost the argument. By putting it about that "one pint will put you over the limit" they cried wolf. (One pint or one glass of wine will not put anyone over the 50mg limit.) When someone like Maurice Nelligan, the eminent heart surgeon, writes that the current limits are fine, people tend to listen.
In fact, the tide of opinion is turning on this matter. On the RSA's website (drinkdriving.ie) they state that 3 out of 4 drivers want the limits lowered but the recent AA survey saw that number reduced to 61% which is about two out of three, while a survey on Irish Health online actually found a slight majority against lowering the limits. Here it is:
http://www.irishhealth.com/poll.html?pollid=530
This is what happened in Canada. The more that people became informed on the issue the less they wanted the limits reduced. The RSA tried to rush this through before any debate could take place but they've failed.
The issue has been kicked to touch, put on the long finger, spiked, whatever way you want to put it. This nonsense about it taking so long to re-calibrate the breath-testing equipment is a convenient excuse. (they knew this was coming down the line for the past two years - why didn't they start re-calibrating back then?)
The will for enforcing these low limits clearly isn't there among the authorities. With burglaries up 25%, tiger kidnappings happening all too frequently, dissident republicans emerging etc. etc. etc not to mention the Garda time taken up with all these public sector protests, someone took the sensible decision to leave the limits as they are.
Road deaths are down something like 40-plus on this time last year (and 2008 was a record low) The goodwill and general acceptance of the current limits could be lost if a more heavy handed approach was adopted. As some posters have said above, lives would undoubtedley be saved if lower speed limits were adopted and stricly enforced but that ain't gonna happen either.0 -
Excessive/Inappropriate Speed
Speed is at the core of the road safety problem because higher speed reduces the time available to avoid collision and makes the impact in a collision more severe.
Speeding reduces a driver's ability to steer safely around bends or objects in the roadway, extends the distance necessary to stop a vehicle, and increases the distance a vehicle travels while the driver reacts to a dangerous situation.
It's a very simple concept. The faster you drive the less time you have to react to a situation. At 60 mph, a car will travel 88 feet in one second - that's quite a distance in an instant and not a lot of time to react.- Speed is the single largest factor contributing to road deaths in Ireland.
- Over 40% of fatal accidents are caused by excessive or inappropriate speed.
Research and international experience show that the frequency and severity of road crashes tend to decrease with reductions in average speed. A 1km/h decrease in average speed results typically in a 3% decrease in road crash frequency. (Source: European Transport Safety Council)
The higher the impact speed, the greater the likehood of seroius and fatal injury. For car occupants in a collision with an impact speed of 80km/h (50mph), the likelihood of death is about 20 times that at an impact speed of 30km/h (20mph).- A 50 km/h (30mph) impact is equivalent to dropping a car from the top of a 2-storey building
- A 100 km/h (60mph) impact is equivalent to dropping 11 storeys
- A 150 km/h (80mph) crash to almost 30 storeys
Here is a little for you on speeding which is taken from here:http://www.rte.ie/news/features/roadsafety/roadsafetyissues.html#speed
So now seen as though speed is involved in more accidents than drink are you going to answer my question, why are you targetting drink driving over speeding?? After all the statics show that if you are doing 80k you are 20 times more likely to die than if you are doing 30k, so why don't you want to bring the speed limit down to 30k?? Or do you have a different agenda other than saving lives??[/QUOTE]
If you want to lower the speed limits OPEN A SEPERATE THREAD and discuss it.
Stick to the topic and stop clogging the thread with drivel.0 -
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »Even though the statistics state otherwise ?
50mg - 80 mg = 3%
What kind of a statistic is that? 50mg - 80 mg = 3%?????
What does that mean? 3% of what??? Please provide a link.0 -
-
-
What kind of a statistic is that? 50mg - 80 mg = 3%?????
What does that mean? 3% of what??? Please provide a link.
He is quite clearly refering to this:You keep going on about 70%, a fact of Irish road deaths is that between 2003 and 2005 3% of driver deaths were between 50-80mg while 27% had no alcholal at all, does that mean that we are better off all have 50-80mg before we drive??0 -
What kind of a statistic is that? 50mg - 80 mg = 3%?????
What does that mean? 3% of what??? Please provide a link.
TippMan beat me to it, even though it should have been blatantly obvious if you were reading through the thread, as it was the post immediately prior to mine.
Strangely enough, that's two of us that mentioned it, and you still haven't explained how you came up with your figure of 70%.....even if you didn't know what my post was about, the above was there in black and white in TippMan's post.0 -
Ireland is definitely NOT a country I would violate speed limit in. Windy, twisted, gnarled road system. Narrow as ****. And the Rain and the Sleet? Only in the height of Summer on a Motorway would I feel in any way safe. Your roads are Death Traps: Slow the **** down.0
-
Advertisement
-
You keep going on about 70%, a fact of Irish road deaths is that between 2003 and 2005 3% of driver deaths were between 50-80mg while 27% had no alcholal at all, does that mean that we are better off all have 50-80mg before we drive??
No, if you have 60-80mg before you drive there is a 70% chance that alcohol will be to blame. This means that there is a 30% chance its bad luck, other driver etc. So you are 70/30 =2.33 times more likely to crash with 60-80 mg in you system than with no alcohol in your system. So no dont drink and drive.Liam Byrne wrote: »TippMan beat me to it, even though it should have been blatantly obvious if you were reading through the thread, as it was the post immediately prior to mine.
Strangely enough, that's two of us that mentioned it, and you still haven't explained how you came up with your figure of 70%.....even if you didn't know what my post was about, the above was there in black and white in TippMan's post.
That is false. I have explained where it came from several times and limked to it at least twice. Check post 306 and stop being lazy.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »It's what I proposed earlier; if they were seriously aiming to reduce deaths they'd tackle the worst causes......but it's ridiculous that those who propose dropping an alcohol limit (because they don't drink one or two and drive, therefore it affects others) are firmly opposed to lowering the speed limits.
.
( THink you may have revealed more than you intended here)
You are saying that supporters of the limit drop are only doing so because they dont drink "one or two" and drive.
I judge things based on if I think they are right or wrong and not on how they affect me personally.
Can we infer from your comment though that you are against the drop because it will cause you discomfort and in actual fact the rights or wrongs of it are not a factor for you?0 -
Does anyone know if this law has been enforced, very hard to find correct information.
Also, do the Garda check your Blood Alcohol level or your Breath Alcohol level, you would presume its your breath. But I actually think its your blood that is measured.0 -
douglashyde wrote: »Does anyone know if this law has been enforced, very hard to find correct information.
Also, do the Garda check your Blood Alcohol level or your Breath Alcohol level, you would presume its your breath. But I actually think its your blood that is measured.
They have to recalibrate and/or replace the intoxilyzers (sp?) in stations all over the country to reflect the revised limit....which is going to take 18+ months supposedly.
Of course none of this occured to anyone when they were rushing through the new legislation...people in support of the change were of the opinion that this would change almost overnight...as far as I can see it was an excersise in misdirection away from some other political issue, a lot like the learner driver thing last year.
AFAIK only breath testing is used now to avoid the need for a doctor. There are probably certain cases where blood can still be taken.0 -
douglashyde wrote: »Also, do the Garda check your Blood Alcohol level or your Breath Alcohol level, you would presume its your breath. But I actually think its your blood that is measured.
The check your breath. However I think you can refuse to give breath and can give a blood sample. It's illegal to refuse a blood or breath sample. I think. If you refuse both the criminal punishment is similar to being over the limit.0 -
I realise that it is your breath that is check, but the result actually gives your blood alcohol level.... if that makes sense....
put it this way:
what is the legal limit in Ireland? .80 or .35?0 -
( THink you may have revealed more than you intended here)
Let's see whether or not I did, although I think you just posted that to make it look like there was something massively new in my post.You are saying that supporters of the limit drop are only doing so because they dont drink "one or two" and drive.
I judge things based on if I think they are right or wrong and not on how they affect me personally.
Same here. And it's a nice bit of deflection......my point was that people who claim that this is for safety reasons are a LOT less vocal about reducing speed limits, and I was wondering about THEM, not ME.
So why are you not against reducing the speed limits if they'll save more lives than your beloved reduction in drink limits ?Can we infer from your comment though that you are against the drop because it will cause you discomfort and in actual fact the rights or wrongs of it are not a factor for you?
You can "infer" whatever you like, but you'd be wrong.....and please be a LOT more careful what you infer, because you got it spectacularly wrong the last time! :rolleyes:
The "rights and wrongs" ARE a factor; but this would be blatantly obvious to anyone who'd bothered to read and understand what I posted earlier in the thread that I often drink LESS than the CURRENT limit when that's the right thing to do, or leave the car when that's the right thing to do.0 -
douglashyde wrote: »I realise that it is your breath that is check, but the result actually gives your blood alcohol level.... if that makes sense....
put it this way:
what is the legal limit in Ireland? .80 or .35?
AFAIK it uses either, they are cross compatible.
Limit has gone from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood, down to 50 mg/100ml.
In terms of content of breath that's 32µg of alcohol per 100ml of breath, down to 22µg/100ml.0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Same here. And it's a nice bit of deflection......my point was that people who claim that this is for safety reasons are a LOT less vocal about reducing speed limits, and I was wondering about THEM, not ME.
This is what you said:but it's ridiculous that those who propose dropping an alcohol limit (because they don't drink one or two and drive, therefore it affects others)are firmly opposed to lowering the speed limits.
You are clearly giving the reason behind those proposing to drop the speed limit is because they dont drink a couple of pints and drive.
It thats how you think then clearly you are only against the speed limits only because you do take a couple of drinks and drive.0 -
Advertisement
-
This is what you said:
You are clearly giving the reason behind those proposing to drop the speed limit is because they dont drink a couple of pints and drive.
It thats how you think then clearly you are only against the speed limits only because you do take a couple of drinks and drive.
I tell ya, you have that bolding and emphasising the wrong parts of posts down to a "T". :rolleyes:
My point is whether THEY are only proposing something because it doesn't affect THEM. In case you hadn't noticed, BOTH speed limits AND drink limits affect me (BOTH actually involve driving, y'know) so your stance on this is ridiculous.
And since you're talking to someone who recognised for years that a 60mph limit on some of the back roads was ridiculous - EVEN THOUGH THAT AFFECTED ME TOO - you're yet again way off the mark!
P.S. I'm not "against speed limits"0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement