Drink Driving Limits

BroomBurner

I can't believe there are still people trotting out the same old excuses for drinking and driving - "ah sure, I know I can drive", "I live far away from the pub" blah blah blah.

Why anyone would willingly impair their ability to drive is beyond me.

All you have is excuses.

murfie

BroomBurner wrote: »

Why anyone would willingly impair their ability to drive is beyond me.

All you have is excuses.

Nobody on here wants to break the law, the majority of drink related accidents that occur are people who are above the 0.08% BAC. This is not such a black and white issue as you would like to make out. Lowering the level to 0.05% wont make any differnce to the people that drive drunk right now, they have no regard for the law.

Why penalise the social 2-3 pint drinker and jepordise the pub industry further when it is people who drink enough to go over the 0.08% legal limit that is the problem.

Now granted before you say it, people with BAC lower then 0.08% get into accidents, but the vast majority is above which is why the limit is 0.08%.

starbelgrade

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Different issue; we're not talking about "getting away with it" (which you might if the machine calibrated was wrong) we're talking about being legal and safe to drive.

When it comes to being legal & safe to drive, the issue of "getting away with it" will always come into it. Regardless of machine calibration - which I mentioned as an aside - you could easily knock back 4 pints & be technically & even physically legal & safe to drive.

I argued that your "4 pints" rule doesn't always stick & I stand by my argument.

sceptre

murfie wrote: »

Why penalise the social 2-3 pint drinker and jepordise the pub industry further when it is people who drink enough to go over the 0.08% legal limit that is the problem.

Simply put because the point of lowering the limit is to protect lives and take a position that any pub drinking is too much when followed by driving. This is pretty clear from many of the posts before yours as well as the official statements laying out the position and rationale.

"Jeopardising the pub industry" isn't a factor that should feature in the equation at all when considering alcohol-impaired driving.

Liam Byrne

starbelgrade wrote: »

When it comes to being legal & safe to drive, the issue of "getting away with it" will always come into it. Regardless of machine calibration - which I mentioned as an aside - you could easily knock back 4 pints & be technically & even physically legal & safe to drive.

I argued that your "4 pints" rule doesn't always stick & I stand by my argument.

Just to clarify - my own rule when driving is 2, and they're often shandies !!!!

BroomBurner

murfie wrote: »

Nobody on here wants to break the law, the majority of drink related accidents that occur are people who are above the 0.08% BAC. This is not such a black and white issue as you would like to make out. Lowering the level to 0.05% wont make any differnce to the people that drive drunk right now, they have no regard for the law.

Why penalise the social 2-3 pint drinker and jepordise the pub industry further when it is people who drink enough to go over the 0.08% legal limit that is the problem.

Now granted before you say it, people with BAC lower then 0.08% get into accidents, but the vast majority is above which is why the limit is 0.08%.

Statistics and percentages mean nothing to those hurt/killed in accidents that involve alcohol, even in minor amounts. If even one person involved in an accident had to ponder "what if I didn't have that drink?" then that is one too many.

To my mind, if you're taking the car, then why would it even cross your mind to have one drink? Don't come out with the "I like the taste stuff" either. Lots of people like the taste of alcoholic drinks, but they still make the conscious, sensible decision to forego the drink if they have the car.

And don't be worrying about the publican either, the mark-up on soft-drinks and non-alcoholic drinks is plenty.

johnnyskeleton

Idbatterim wrote: »

take a look at this artice! http://www.independent.ie/national-news/dempsey-in-nanny-state-showdown-on-drinkdriving-limits-1917582.html The backbenchers and anyone who opposes this are a disgrace! Greedy, self serving bast**ds. I enjoy a drink as much as the next man! but the amount of lives lost through drink driving, and for those that dont lose there lives, end up as vegetables, mamed etc is appalling! I really hope it gets lowered to 50mg.

I'm not sure lowering the limit will have that much of an effect on lives lost. It seems to me that increased checks is more important, as the risk of getting caught is the greatest deterrent.

Liam Byrne

BroomBurner wrote: »

To my mind, if you're taking the car, then why would it even cross your mind to have one drink?

That would imply, firstly, that you have a choice as to whether or not to "take the car".

BroomBurner wrote: »

Don't come out with the "I like the taste stuff" either. Lots of people like the taste of alcoholic drinks, but they still make the conscious, sensible decision to forego the drink if they have the car.

Sorry, beat you to this one by saying that earlier. And the fact of the matter is that those are the people who make a "conscious, sensible decision" at the moment to have 2......perfectly legal and safe and within the current law.

Maybe there are enough idiots around to warrant a nanny state, but as I've said earlier it's completely unfair to those of us who abide by both the letter - and the spirit - of the law, having one or less if we haven't eaten or are in any way tired.

Pedro K

Ah sure Gay Byrne used to drink drive.

But it wasn't dangerous back then, just a part of the culture! :rolleyes:

link

Although I don't condone drink driving, never have driven after having a drink. and have no intention to, I still think Uncle Gaybo and the R.S.A need a nice cold pint of shut the hell up.

Ciaran500

murfie wrote: »

Not necessarily, the avg person will process one alcoholic drink per hour. 4 pints over 4 hours, the avg person would not be over the limit.

I see this fact thrown up in error constantly, the average person will process 1 unit an hour. Thats 1 half pint of 4% per hour.

starbelgrade

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just to clarify - my own rule when driving is 2, and they're often shandies !!!!

Bah - lightweight.

BroomBurner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That would imply, firstly, that you have a choice as to whether or not to "take the car".



Sorry, beat you to this one by saying that earlier. And the fact of the matter is that those are the people who make a "conscious, sensible decision" at the moment to have 2......perfectly legal and safe and within the current law.

Maybe there are enough idiots around to warrant a nanny state, but as I've said earlier it's completely unfair to those of us who abide by both the letter - and the spirit - of the law, having one or less if we haven't eaten or are in any way tired.

Everyone has a choice! Lol Plenty of people in the country can't drive and they still manage to get themselves to a pub. Anyone who thinks that they "don't have a choice" is lazy and/or selfish.

Don't have a choice. That's hilarious. "Your Honour, I was forced to go to the pub in the car. I swear, I only had two drinks" - doesn't cut it when someone gets hurt.

I still believe in making it illegal to drive after one standard drink of the lowest % alcohol. If you're a law-abiding citizen, you'll be able to cope and find other ways and means of drinking. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "nanny-stateism", that's just yet another excuse.

starbelgrade

Pedro K wrote: »

I still think Uncle Gaybo and the R.S.A need a nice cold pint of shut the hell up.

With a whiskey chaser. Make it a double.

drunkmonkey

The Government(dempsey) should lobby drinks companys to subsidize a new rural bus scheme and keep it operation until the pubs close.

It wouldn't cost the drinks industry any money as they could just cut back on advertising somewhere else, it's a win win everybody wins.

This is about the only way of getting a local transport service to rural areas. It's not like we'll get funding for it in the budget.

The limit shouldn't be touched until the rural transport problem is fixed.

maybe we could trial something until 2013 before we review the drink driving laws again?

bonkey

ninty9er wrote: »

If you have had alcohol of ANY kind in ANY measure then you should not be driving any time soon afterwards.

YOU may not think it affects your ability to drive, but the facts say otherwise.

Cop on and have a cup of tea or a MiWadi instead.

Don't make this personal.

starbelgrade

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The Government(dempsey) should lobby drinks companys to subsidize a new rural bus scheme and keep it operation until the pubs close.

It wouldn't cost the drinks industry any money as they could just cut back on advertising somewhere else, it's a win win everybody wins.

They wouldn't even have to cut down on advertising as it would actually make them money, as well as providing employment.

As for advertising drink in Ireland? What a laugh - you don't even need to bring the horse to water in this country.... but if you do it in a bus.. yep, everyone's a winner baby (that's no lie).

murfie

Ciaran500 wrote: »

I see this fact thrown up in error constantly, the average person will process 1 unit an hour. Thats 1 half pint of 4% per hour.

Your right in that i was in error saying 4 pint 4 hours its an inaccurate statement, I meant it more of a generalisation but I later corrected myself 12 US fl oz beer is 1 alcoholic drink. there is 568 ml (20.06 imp fl oz; 19.27 US fl oz) in a standard pint glass.

But leave that aside, little details are getting away from the larger point. I still think it comes down to personal responsibility and its the requirement of each of us to be aware of how drink is affecting us.

80 mg/100 ml limit needs to be enforced better, for the year i was home after the introduction of the drink driving checkpoints I was never stopped or asked to give a breath sample not once. Enforce this better and we will see results, lowering the limit wont be as effective.

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

If you KNOW that you're awake/alert enough for it not to make a difference and stay within the law then you're NOT going increase your existing (because accidents do happen no matter what) chances of running anyone over.....

Its well established that one of the first things that is effected by alcohol is your judgement....so you can't actually trust your belief.

Earlier in this thread, you were arguing that there are too many people driving over the current limit, and that's what the government should concentrate on. Now you seem to be arguing that its ok to drive regardless of hte limit and your relation to it as long as you believe you're ok to do so.

The argument, incidentally of "I've often driven home technically over the limit but knew I was fine" is fatally flawed, in that I don't believe anyone could legimately argue that the guy with 10 pints in him who's weaved his way home dozens of times without running someone over is fine to drive on the basis that he hasn't had an accident yet.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

The Government(dempsey) should lobby drinks companys to subsidize a new rural bus scheme and keep it operation until the pubs close.

It wouldn't cost the drinks industry any money as they could just cut back on advertising somewhere else, it's a win win everybody wins.

This is about the only way of getting a local transport service to rural areas. It's not like we'll get funding for it in the budget.

The limit shouldn't be touched until the rural transport problem is fixed.

maybe we could trial something until 2013 before we review the drink driving laws again?

Sorry but this is getting too much at this stage. The industry can go and shíte tbh.

starbelgrade

murfie wrote: »

Enforce this better and we will see results, lowering the limit wont be as effective.

This is a very true point. In the last year, I've been breathalised 3 times, but on each count, it was at a time when I wouldn't be drinking, ie., 3-5pm in the afternoon. Also, it was in the village where I live & they always set up the check points in the same spot - whichever way you are coming as you're heading to go through the village, you can see the checkpoint & have the option of taking a side road off to avoid it altogether.

If you WERE drinking & driving, you'd have to be seriously p*ssed to actually drive up the checkpoint.

I've also seen the guards raiding the local pubs at 3am when they should legally be closed, tell everyone to get out, then say nothing as some of the locals bail into their cars & drive off home. There's no serious enforcement of the drink driving laws. If there were, there'd be gardai watching to see which rurual pubs have a rake of cars parked outside them after midnight & catch them as they drive off.

But that'd be too much like hard work.

starbelgrade

bonkey wrote: »

I don't believe anyone could legimately argue that the guy with 10 pints in him who's weaved his way home dozens of times without running someone over is fine to drive on the basis that he hasn't had an accident yet.

That depends on whether you're argument is based on mathemathics or morals.

Liam Byrne

bonkey wrote: »

Its well established that one of the first things that is effected by alcohol is your judgement....so you can't actually trust your belief.

You can if you're responsible and make the judgement before going out.

bonkey wrote: »

Earlier in this thread, you were arguing that there are too many people driving over the current limit, and that's what the government should concentrate on. Now you seem to be arguing that its ok to drive regardless of hte limit and your relation to it as long as you believe you're ok to do so.

I have absolutely no idea where I "seem to be arguing that".

The statements I made were firmly in relation to being AT the current limit or UNDER it (if tired, etc)......so I'd much prefer if you didn't try to twist what I'm saying in order to imply that I'm condoning irresponsible behaviour.

By all means, feel free to state your opinion on what I have said and believe, but I'd be obliged if you could leave out the "you seem to be arguing", because you're getting that wrong.

bonkey wrote: »

The argument, incidentally of "I've often driven home technically over the limit but knew I was fine" is fatally flawed, in that I don't believe anyone could legimately argue that the guy with 10 pints in him who's weaved his way home dozens of times without running someone over is fine to drive on the basis that he hasn't had an accident yet.

This paragraph is completely irrelevant, because it's a discussion about the effects of lowering the limit. People ignoring the current limit are already breaking the law and behaving irresponsibly, so that's a separate issue (unless, as I suggested, the Government cop themselves on and enforce EXISTING laws).

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You can if you're responsible and make the judgement before going out.


The statements I made were firmly in relation to being AT the current limit or UNDER it (if tired, etc)......so I'd much prefer if you didn't try to twist what I'm saying in order to imply that I'm condoning irresponsible behaviour.

By all means, feel free to state your opinion on what I have said and believe, but I'd be obliged if you could leave out the "you seem to be arguing", because you're getting that wrong.



This paragraph is completely irrelevant, because it's a discussion about the effects of lowering the limit. People ignoring the current limit are already breaking the law and behaving irresponsibly, so that's a separate issue (unless, as I suggested, the Government cop themselves on and enforce EXISTING laws).

This is an issue that I have no patience for alternative views on, simply becasue the facts are there.

Let's get one thing VERY clear from the get-go. No judgment that involves a conclusion to part-take in alcohol and then drive could be described as sensible.

Then again I have moved my car in a car park to an area under a security camera having taken a drink, but I wouldn't class an empty car park as a changable situation as regards traffic. No excuse though, it was a stupid idea.

Secondly it is a matter for An Garda Siochána to enforce the existing limit. As much as you have a livid hatred for the goverment Liam, nothing is going to change that fact.

Thirdly, just because it suits some people to say that we should enforce the current laws doesn't mean there's no scope for redefiing what's wrong and what's illegal, which are invariably 2 very different things. So, to follow that, just because SOME divisions are not enforcing the current limit as well as others is no reason not to lower the limit.

It's not about enforcement, it's about the definition of what's safer, and while .1mg would be better, .5mg is a step closer.

paddyland

Make no bones about it, this proposed legislation is nothing more than a PR soundbite for minister Noel Dempsey. The minister who mishandles every issue that crosses his brief, and who has a litany of public relations disasters behind him, badly needs a positive story to spin ahead of any upcoming election, and to keep him level with minister smoking ban Martin in the party leadership stakes.

For the record, I don't drink. At all. I do however drive a lot. Professionally and privately. The amount of blatant drink driving I encounter every night is unbelievable. This legislation will not make the slightest difference. If people who are obviously over the current limit are not being stopped and put off the road, how are they suddenly going to be stopped under the new arrangements?

Every FF minister plays this game, Dermot Ahern and Dempsey being master practicioners. Rather than enforce the existing perfectly adequate legislation, simply bring in even more stringent, unfair, and often unenforceable legislation. Result? Positive spin story in the media, minister doing something about these awful plagues on society, while in practice nothing changes. Those who break the law, continue to do so unmolested, while those decent ordinary people who do not wish to break the law, have to live with an increasingly offensive nanny state. Minister 1, Society 0.

starbelgrade

ninty9er wrote: »

This is an issue that I have no patience for alternative views on, simply becasue the facts are there.

If you are not open to debate, then I'd suggest the Ranting & Raving forum where people are not allowed to disagree with you. A fact may be black in your head, white in someone elses & pink in anothers.

And patience IS a virtue.

Having said that, while I agree with this statement in principle....

ninty9er wrote: »

No judgment that involves a conclusion to part-take in alcohol and then drive could be described as sensible.

... it's not always the case in practice.

Point in case -

ninty9er wrote: »

I have moved my car in a car park to an area under a security camera having taken a drink

And again, in principle....

ninty9er wrote: »

It's not about enforcement, it's about the definition of what's safer, and while .1mg would be better, .5mg is a step closer.

But in practice, we all know what happens & a principle without practice is just theoretical. And when was the last time theory stopped a drunk driver at 3am driving a car into a ditch? Laws are pointless without enforcement. If you agreed so much with the principle of the law, you would have presented yourself to the guards for your drink driving misdermeanour & proposed the security tapes as evidence.

If patience wasn't a virtue...

Liam Byrne

ninty9er wrote: »

Let's get one thing VERY clear from the get-go. No judgment that involves a conclusion to part-take in alcohol and then drive could be described as sensible.

.....in your opinion.

ninty9er wrote: »

Then again I have moved my car in a car park to an area under a security camera having taken a drink, but I wouldn't class an empty car park as a changable situation as regards traffic. No excuse though, it was a stupid idea.

So you made the decision AFTER taking the drink, and yet you castigate me for categorically stating that I'll make a decision to stay within the law (and below if necessary, because as you rightly point out, the law isn't the be-all and end-all when it comes to sensible behaviour) BEFORE I go out ?

ninty9er wrote: »

Secondly it is a matter for An Garda Siochána to enforce the existing limit. As much as you have a livid hatred for the goverment Liam, nothing is going to change that fact.

Two related points on this one; firstly, my "livid hatred" is BECAUSE of Government decisions, so it's not an irrational or unwarranted one.

Secondly, if there are no Gardai in an area because of the closure of rural Garda stations (one of said decisions), then there is no way that they could possibly enforce the current limit (or indeed, even if they were around and scheduled to do so, enforce it while some old lady gets mugged in her home).

ninty9er wrote: »

Thirdly, just because it suits some people to say that we should enforce the current laws doesn't mean there's no scope for redefiing what's wrong and what's illegal, which are invariably 2 very different things.

Funny that - John O'Donoghue defended himself using the reverse of that argument last week and got applauded by some people for it.

Anyway, I already dealt with this above, because I don't base my behaviour on riding the limit of the law; I'll drink less if I'm tired or haven't eaten. The point is that criminalising more people will not improve matters; there should be a concerted campaign to enforce the current law.

ninty9er wrote: »

It's not about enforcement, it's about the definition of what's safer, and while .1mg would be better, .5mg is a step closer.

I'll actually agree with you on the first half of that statement; and since it's accepted that anyone over 80mg is unsafe (and significantly and inherently unsafer than anyone under 50mg) then it would be better to get people to cop on, decide to stick to the current limit BEFORE going out, not get behind the wheel if they go over it (not even to move their car, since there could be people in the car park who are drunk themselves) and still have a social life of some sort.

mikemac

We don't need new laws, just enforce what is there already

I see drink driving as a rural problem. Sorry but if you live in Dulin and drive to Rathmines or in Galway and drive to Salthill you deserve to put off the road.
Go live in a town with no taxi's, just 15 hackney and 10,000 people and possibly a two hour wait for your booking

If you live in a city you can survive being put off the road.
Tell a farmer or a farming contractor that they lost their licence then the business is finished and it's an instant social welfare claim. Though like most self-employed people they'll get feck all

lmimmfn

Hows about giving tossers who dont indicate 4 points instead of this crap, the amount of bloody times i hit a roundabout and at least 70% dont indicate onto or off the roundabout.

This is a joke if you live in a rural area, when im at home in Donegal, i cant even convince taxi drivers to take me to my folks gaff when i go for a pint or 2.

Not only that but in the past year driving home from work in the evenings( admitedly a back road but still a decent road ) ive come across 3 or 4 absolutely plastered guys driving at around 6 or 7 in the evening. Even overtaking them is dangers as they drive at around 15-20 miles an hour but continue swerving as you try and overtake them. Police the bloody existing laws and forget about this Nanny nonsense.

Mad_Max

murfie wrote: »

Why penalise the social 2-3 pint drinker and jepordise the pub industry further when it is people who drink enough to go over the 0.08% legal limit that is the problem.

Personally I've not time for this argument. If you want to be a social 2-3 pint drinker, make plans to get home. end of. Driving is a priviledge and not a right. There limit should be 0 imo.

and p.s. Who gives a sh*t about the pub industry in comparison to someones life.

Liam Byrne

Mad_Max wrote: »

Driving is a priviledge and not a right.

You're entitled to your opinon, and it was well put, but how do you reckon the above ?

For about 60% of the country, driving is a necessity, because there is no public transport whatsoever.

Maybe that's not the case in Clondalkin, in which case yes, I'd agree that there's no excuse for not jumping on a Luas or Nightlink, but there is no alternative whatsoever in large areas of the country.

And if those people are within the law and capable of driving home safely, there is no issue or added risk.

As others have said, enforce and educate the existing laws.