Drink Driving Limits

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.

starbelgrade

Mad_Max wrote: »

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.

If you are not (as it appears) willing to enter a debate, then why enter it at all? It's ok to state an opinion, but why be closed to persuasion? A good argument never hurt anyone!

Mad_Max

Totally agree that enforcing rules is a major problem and your right I speak from a position where I have multiple modes of transport to get home.

My problem with drinking and driving is that it is dependant on too many factors.. from mood to body size. Personally if I had a pint I wouldn't feel safe driving. Id rather all doubt be removed.

I can't pretend to know what to do about the rural areas haven never lived in one but as someone said a law thats good for dublin isn't good for rural areas and the opposite applies. Someone driving around dublin with .08% is more deadly than someone driving with less than that.

starbelgrade

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.

It's one thing enforcing & educating the existing laws, but driving to and from a pub is not a necessity if you live in rural areas. You can always choose not to go to the pub. Or walk.

But that's not gonna happen. The reality is that people need watering as much as plants & that's the way it is. As someone suggested before, why don't the breweries cop on & invest in their customers - provide buses back from local pubs & they'd make a whole lot more money as people won't be thinking.. "can I get away with another pint?" They'll stay all night & drink till they can't stand, or even walk. That's when driving comes into the equation & therein lies the problem.

You can ask the mammy state (the one who protects & promotes our utopian ideal) to enforce laws & bring in zero tolerance.. ... but what about asking the daddy state for a lift home?

lmimmfn

starbelgrade wrote: »

It's one thing enforcing & educating the existing laws, but driving to and from a pub is not a necessity if you live in rural areas. You can always choose not to go to the pub. Or walk.

lol, so in my case when im at home i could walk 4 and a half miles to the pub and back again? Yes i could choose to go to the pub but i like to catch up with my mates. Again i could choose not to drink and a lot of the times i do just that however i do actually like the taste of my beer of choice and absolutely hate fizzy crap drinks like coke, in which case theres feck all with having 1 pint apart from bringing out a stupid law to prohibit it.

Some tosser on a valium would be more likely to cause an accident than your average bloke on 1 pint.

starbelgrade

lmimmfn wrote: »

lol, so in my case when im at home i could walk 4 and a half miles to the pub and back again? Yes i could choose to go to the pub but i like to catch up with my mates. Again i could choose not to drink and a lot of the times i do just that however i do actually like the taste of my beer of choice and absolutely hate fizzy crap drinks like coke, in which case theres feck all with having 1 pint apart from bringing out a stupid law to prohibit it.

Some tosser on a valium would be more likely to cause an accident than your average bloke on 1 pint.

You quoted only my first paragraph. The other paragraphs I wrote do not only agree with what you are saying, but go a step futher.

From one rural living beer drinker to another... cheers.. mine's a pint.

lmimmfn

starbelgrade wrote: »

You quoted only my first paragraph. The other paragraphs I wrote do not only agree with what you are saying, but go a step futher.

From one rural living beer drinker to another... cheers.. mine's a pint.

ahh sorry man, apologies i got called off mid replying and missed the rest of it, sorry bout that, and cheers, pint on the way

SeanW

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.

Idbatterim wrote: »

bring that Chris Andrews cu*t to the scene of a few accidents, bring him to the hospitals where people are recovering or dying, bring him to rehab, invite him to the funerals of the dead! Disgusting fu***ng subhuman!

Do you have any facts to go with this emotional hyperbole?

Specifically, before we change the limit from .80 to .50 (or even lower :eek:) is it too much to ask for statistics re: how many accidents are caused by people driving with BACs between .50 and .80? How many people die on the roads because of such accidents?

For the record I rarely drink and never drink/drive. I have no interest in doing so. But I see no reason why (for example) to have a zero limit, this would preclude someone eating some kinds of desserts, taking some cough medicines, or other very light/careful consumption.
A ridiculously low limit - such as a zero limit - would also make it easier to snare people "the day after."

seamus

SeanW wrote: »

Specifically, before we change the limit from .80 to .50 (or even lower :eek:) is it too much to ask for statistics re: how many accidents are caused by people driving with BACs between .50 and .80? How many people die on the roads because of such accidents?

For reasons I've already pointed out, such statistics would be of limited use because the impact is greater than simply removing that band of people from the fatalities. You would need to conduct a comprehensive survey of people - find out how many would drive on occasion with the current limit and how many of them will be knocking that on the head after the limit is lowered.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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

But you've already agreed that in particular circumstances a person could be tipsy after a single pint, which would impair their judgement, rendering any pre-judgement useless. Besides, we don't make laws to catch out responsible people.

Sizzler

Why is Noel Dempsey trying to sell this concept? Surely it belongs to the minister of justice, wheres Noel Ahern in all of this

Mad_Max

Kevin Myers was on Tom Dunne this morning on the subject, heavily on the side of the 1 or 2 pint drink drivers.

I didn't agree with any of his arguments for it, mainly that it's making a law that makes an example out of one section of society to set a precedent to the rest.

For me this rule would be quite simply setting the precedent to everyone. It's as close to saying you cannot drink at all and drive and is high enough to allow those exceptions mentioned above such as cough medicines or mouth wash.

vinylrules

Very reasonable and balanced debate just finished on Pat Kenny radio show involving all the players, including rural TD, Publican, Noel Brett from RSA and Suan Gray from Public Against Road Carnage.

The very last point made was one that is often forgotten. And that is, you can drink one unit of alcohol per hour and remain virtually alcohol free, as your body eliminates one unit per hour. Put this another way - someone having say, two glasses of wine during a meal lasting a couple of hours would be well in the clear.

When Pat Kenny put this to Noel Brett his response was "absolutely." So there we have it - confirmed from official sources - you can drink alcohol and drive once you give an hour per unit!

Amazing!

Rebelheart

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.

Noel Brett of the RSA has just been on Today with Pat Kenny and he was very clear that the Irish Independent article was "erroneous" in many of its claims, particularly the one which said 1st offenders with up to 100mg of alcohol would be treated leniently.

In particular go to 10.32am for Brett giving the finest defence of the proposed changes:

http://www.rte.ie/radio/index.html

The limit should be 0. And he gave plenty of evidence supporting the 50mg proposal. Whether certain people want to ignore it - including the Fianna Fáil TD for Longford-Westmeath, Peter Kelly, who said on the programme that it's fine to drive with "a few drinks" on you - is another matter. Indeed.

God Save Ireland with such troglodytes around the place.

Liam Byrne

seamus wrote: »

But you've already agreed that in particular circumstances a person could be tipsy after a single pint, which would impair their judgement, rendering any pre-judgement useless.

Why would it render any pre-judgement useless ?

If you pre-judged that you were tired, and so didn't take the car, then there's no issue.

If you pre-judged that you weren't, then you wouldn't be tipsy after the single pint, so there's no issue.

seamus wrote: »

Besides, we don't make laws to catch out responsible people.

Maybe not, but we seem to implement our enforcement to hit those trying to abide by the rules harder.

vinylrules

There is some selective use of statistics and research being used by the RSA. It's not a question of whether or not you are slightly impaired at .05 it's about the effective use of scarce police resources for maximun effect. Here's another study looking at the effects of various BACs....(I've pasted the final conclusions below)

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/Misc/driving/s9p2.htm

Considering the incidence of DUI, it was argued that effective countermeasures that substantially reduce the number of accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol should be directed towards drivers with BACs greater than 0.08%. This also implies that simply changing the legal DUI limit from 0.08% to 0.05% is insufficient with respect to alcohol-induced accidents as the potential reduction would be only about 4%. Further inspection of the risk function indicates that certain subgroups of drinking drivers are responsible for the alcohol-related accident risk in the higher BAC range. Measures capable of deterring drinking drivers in this range were expected to have a substantial impact on traffic safety, namely, result in a decrease in accident rates.

Also, Australia - the only English speaking country with .05 has not seen a big reduction in drink driving.
Story here:http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/booze-bust-rate-soars/story-e6frf7jo-1225700392851

"...annual research found the number of drivers who admitted driving when they might have been over .05 -- 10 per cent -- "has not changed significantly over the past 10 years".

Mad_Max

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Maybe not, but we seem to implement our enforcement to hit those trying to abide by the rules harder.

My view on this would be that if you are caught breaking the law then no matter how unfair it is that the enforcement was out to get you, you still broke a law especially if it involves alcohol and driving.

If you only have the 1-2 socials drink and leave it long enough for it to get out of your system and are under the new limit then you'll have nothing to worry about. (although I still feel you shouldn't do it!)

Mad_Max

vinylrules wrote: »

This also implies that simply changing the legal DUI limit from 0.08% to 0.05% is insufficient with respect to alcohol-induced accidents as the potential reduction would be only about 4%.

Thats 4% safer I'd feel being on a road.

MoonDancer

They should ban drinking & driving altogether.

I_am_Jebus

I don't drink drive at all. One time I had a bottle of miller and drove 2 hours later, so should have been grand.

My worry with the change in the law is the next day driving. When can you drive again within the limits of the law. Bought one of those portable breathalysers for my dad a couple of yrs ago and after a heavy session one night decided to try it out. It was at least 24 hours before I was legally able to drive again. Even though, my judgement was perfectly fine.

I remember trying the breathalyser again a few weeks later during a drinking session. I got the same BAC (may have been 1 mg in the difference) that night that I had the first time I checked my BAC about 16 hours after the drinking session the week before. However, there was no way in my head could I get into a car and have the judgment required to drive.

So in my personal experience there are differences in judgement levels depending on circumstances even though BAC is the same. I am not sure how that stands up to medical scrutiny but all I can say is how I felt.

Mad_Max

I_am_Jebus wrote: »

It was at least 24 hours before I was legally able to drive again. Even though, my judgement was perfectly fine.

So for up to 24 hours you were over a limit that has been shown to effect decision making? Then how can you be so sure your judgement was fine?

I have a breathalyzer too and if I am over the limit I don't drive regardless of how long its been because by the law I'm still drunk.

The only times I have been over the limit the morning after (or had anything at all on me) is after a heavy/late session.

Thats where the morning after argument loses me. As has been pointed out you can process 1 unit an hour so if you wakeup after a nights sleep and still are over the limit then you obviously had a hat full of drink the night before.

If you need to drive the day after you're drinking heavily, then you have to make a choice between one or the other.

jape

People who are for this change really haven't a f**king clue.

Here's a quote from a doctor, who actually performs post mortems on people killed in road accidents in the north , where there are even a statistically higher number of fatalities.

The Federation said most drunk drivers involved in accidents were three or four times over the limit and pointed out that respected Donegal Coroner, Dr. John Madden, had publicly stated that he rarely came across accidents where people had between 50 and 80 milligrammes of alcohol in their blood.

http://www.munster-express.ie/opinion/tales-of-the-tellurians/attack-on-proposal-to-reduce-drink-driving-limit/

He's a doctor. He knows a LOT more about this than probably anyone on here, clueless people coming out with radical statements like "ehhh ehh I dunno what I'm on about but ban drink driving altogether! yehh that'll sort everything out!!!".

They point to statements attributed to a Donegal Coroner who says that the vast majority of drink related deaths on our roads involve people with 100 to 150mg of alcohol in their blood – not 50mg.

They also have rubbished claims that lowering the limit will save 18 lives a year. Instead they say that this is the latest installment from the anti-alcohol lobby which will criminalise people who want to have a social pint or two and drive home.

I can safely say this change won't make a blind bit of difference to fatalities on the road.

I_am_Jebus

Mad_Max wrote: »

So for up to 24 hours you were over a limit that has been shown to effect decision making? Then how can you be so sure your judgement was fine?

I have a breathalyzer too and if I am over the limit I don't drive regardless of how long its been because by the law I'm still drunk.

The only times I have been over the limit hte morning after (or had anything at all on me) is after a heavy/late session.

Thats where the morning after argument loses me. As has been pointed out you can process 1 unit an hour so if you wakeup after a nights sleep and still are over the limit then you obviously had a hat full of drink the night before.

If you need to drive the day after you're drinking heavily, then you have to make a choice between one or the other.

I Never said anything about the morning after or that I needed to drive the next day in my example.

If I have to drive at 7 in the morning I cool it on the drink appropriately. But But going to bed at 4 or 5 am and not being able to drive until 8 or 9am the next day is mad.

But despite similar BAC levels there was a complete difference in my alertness and ability to focus etc.. etc... as I gave in my example. Which I find interesting. In other words, in a hypothetical situation where there was no drink driving laws. I would have felt comfortable driving a car with an x BAC level in one instance but completely uncomfortable doing it with the same BAC level in a different instance. Weird! wonder if there are any studies anaylsing BAC and Judgement and other circumstances. and not just BAC and Judgement exclusively.

Mad_Max

My angle on this Jape is that the limit as stands at 80mg leads people to think they can have 1 or 2 drinks and be under the limit.

However, circumstances dependant they may have a bac of higher, somewhere maybe in the range of that 100-150mg and therefore be a risk. I've breathaylzed myself after 2 pints on different occasions and have had different readings (both over the limit actually!)

It's the doubt/grey area I don't like so by removing all doubt it would stop people sliding into that bad area.

Jebus I wasn't taking your point as the example, just in general the argument that people getting caught the next morning isn't fair. I was just asking how could you be sure you're decision making/reactions were top notch.

Liam Byrne

Mad_Max wrote: »

My view on this would be that if you are caught breaking the law then no matter how unfair it is that the enforcement was out to get you, you still broke a law especially if it involves alcohol and driving.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree. My point was that changing an existing law emphasises this even more. Those currently breaking the law (as the quote from the doctor above shows) will continue to do so, while the new law will hammer those who are trying to abide by it.

Tragedy

This really screws morning after drinkers, and many many studies have conclusively shown that even though they may be over the limit by a large amount the next day - it has zero, none, no neuropsychological impairment(See: Mellanby Effect)

I haven't been even slightly convinced by any arguments for it's introduction, and the usual "it will save lives" spiel has **** all going for it.

There's more _ACTUAL_ experts(doctors, authors of studies, gardai) coming out saying that it wont have any noticable effect. Gay Byrne and people who have lost friends/family to drink drivers aren't experts.

In my personal non-representative experience, most accidents/deaths are caused by 3 things:

#1 Young guys very very late at night(see #2)
#2 Tired drivers
#3 Inexperienced/bad drivers.

Inappropriate speed and drink driving falls into #3.

Mad_Max

Again I would go back to my argument that a morning after driver who is still over the limit obviously had a heavy nights drinking.

How can it be seen as responsible to do that if you know you have to drive to work, or wherever, the next morning.

Being a responsible drinker/driver doesnt just mean leaving the car at home at night, its also remembering the next day. Again just my personal opinion, even if it goes against what the experts and reports say.

vinylrules

Where on earth are people getting this idea that "one or two drinks" will put people over the current limit? And that just "one pint" will put people over the new limit? This just isn't true. In fact, your body starts processing eliminating alcohol from the first sip. Below is the official Australian Federal Police advice for staying below their .05 limit - and note that it says they are conservative guidlines:

http://www.afp.gov.au/act/drugs_alcohol/drink_driving.html

Drinking limits advice



To stay below 0.05 BAC, drivers are advised to limit their drinking to:

• For men: No more than two standard drinks in the first hour and no more than one standard drink every hour after that.
• For women: No more than one standard drink in the first hour and no more than one every hour after that.

This is a conservative estimate that is designed to minimise the risk of exceeding the legal limit to drive. Because everyone is different, some people need to drink less to maintain a BAC level below the legal limit. This guide is based on advice from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Do not drive if there is any doubt. Make alternative arrangements: call a taxi, catch a bus, get a lift with someone who has not been drinking, or stay overnight.

Tragedy

Mad_Max wrote: »

Again I would go back to my argument that a morning after driver who is still over the limit obviously had a heavy nights drinking.

What's that got to do with anything?

How can it be seen as responsible to do that if you know you have to drive to work, or wherever, the next morning.

Because tests/studies have shown that it creates no discernible impairment on your ability to drive.

You think it's irresponsible based on what? Your hope that it will be and if you repeat it enough, people will agree?

Being a responsible drinker/driver doesnt just mean leaving the car at home at night, its also remembering the next day.

Remembering what the next day? That you drank the previous night, didn't drive, and there's no logical reason not to drive the next day after a good nights sleep?

Again just my personal opinion, even if it goes against what the experts and reports say.

An opinion based on what? Why shouldnt people who drink be banned from driving for two days because it's irresponsible and well..they just should!

Sizzler

The unfortunate reality is whatever the drink drive limit happens to be, even zero tolerance there will still be clowns of all ages who will get into their car sozzled and think its grand :mad:

SeanW

seamus wrote: »

For reasons I've already pointed out, such statistics would be of limited use because the impact is greater than simply removing that band of people from the fatalities. You would need to conduct a comprehensive survey of people - find out how many would drive on occasion with the current limit and how many of them will be knocking that on the head after the limit is lowered.

Nonetheless I feel that this is an important question to be answered by whosoever may be seeking a reduction in BAC limits - how many people are killed because of the difference between the current limit and the proposed one? As opposed to people killed on the roads due to drivers being greatly over the limit?

There's an old saying that is: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." And it is only a demand for evidence-based law that will protect us from endless intrusions of the Nanny State and its associated bad law.

It's also the only rational response to hyperbole such as "those rural TDs need to visit some trauma centres and morgues ..."

jetfiremuck

FFS it is simple.I have no objection to alchocol sale times, promos, early bird, etc. If you drink dont drive simple. It doesnt matter if you are fat can metabolize alchocol faster ate a feed of rashers before hand dont need to go there. I dont want myself or my family put at risk. This is like the smoking no smoking debate. Go light up in a pub or restuarant now and see what happens. The thing is you can drink as much or as little as you like no one is stopping you or preventing you from driving,however if you get caught then full weight of the law should be applied. If you "didnt think you were over the limit then too bad!!

Tragedy

If you don't want your family put at risk, don't drive.

The chance of being involved in an accident with a drunk person is tiny compared to the chances of being in an accident with a sober person.

Very very silly argument to use.

bonkey

SeanW wrote: »

Nonetheless I feel that this is an important question to be answered by whosoever may be seeking a reduction in BAC limits - how many people are killed because of the difference between the current limit and the proposed one? As opposed to people killed on the roads due to drivers being greatly over the limit?

The counter-question is, of course, why that is important?

The two steps are, quite honestly, independant of each other. One (the proposal to lower limits) is also ridiculously more simple to implement.

It would seem that by putting importance behind your question, you are implicitly suggesting that taking an easy route to save some lives should be avoided when a more difficult route exists to save more lives.

Me...I'd advocate both...with no reason to delay the simple option.

There's an old saying that is: "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

Indeed. By this saying, then, we cannot judge the impacts - positive or negative - of any proposed change until its implemented. Thus, there is nothing to say that the current proposal for change is good or bad.

Alternately, we could accept that the saying is just that...an old saying which is a nice soundbite which shouldn't be assumed to be entirely applicable to anything.

It's also the only rational response to hyperbole such as "those rural TDs need to visit some trauma centres and morgues ..."

Its perhaps emotive, but if the statistics support the notion that lowering from the current limit will save lives, what those TDs are in effect arguing is that whatever it is they want to save (sociability, livelihoods, or whatever) is worth a few lives.

Pedro K

paddyland wrote: »

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.

Nail on the head right there.

Noel Dempsey has proven time and time again that he is consistenly bad at doing his job.

If he had a job in the private sector he would've been sacked a long time ago.

Mad_Max

Tragedy wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything?

Because tests/studies have shown that it creates no discernible impairment on your ability to drive.

You think it's irresponsible based on what? Your hope that it will be and if you repeat it enough, people will agree?

Remembering what the next day? That you drank the previous night, didn't drive, and there's no logical reason not to drive the next day after a good nights sleep?

The highlighted is a particularly childish retort.

I think its irresponsible to break the law. Therefore if you go out on the razz and don't stop in time for the drink to get out of your system and get up, drive, get breathalyzed or worse cause an accident (regardless if the drink isn't what caused it), and are found to be over the limit, thats irresponsible to me.

I've looked up the Mellanby Effect you mentioned and can't really argue with that. A question I would have though is how would you differentiate between someone driving in this circumstance and someone who has just had a few scoops and could well be impaired?

What I meant by remembering you the next day is that you should stop in plenty of time for your body to completely be clear of alcohol. Then you don't need to worry about anything, Mellanby effect or not.

I've stated my view earlier that I think that there should be a zero tolerance to remove all doubts. I guess my views are just stronger than others.

Tragedy wrote: »

An opinion based on what?

An opinion based on my beliefs/views on the subject. That's the definition of an opinion I believe.

jetfiremuck

Right on the money. This is more of the irresponsible behaviour (drink driving) that results in new laws and restrictions that are imposed on our lives. Sad but true.

Tragedy

Mad_Max wrote: »

The highlighted is a particularly childish retort.

How is it childish? You yourself admitted that your argument was mainly based on your own held opinion, not on evidence of some kind.
It doesn't make your opinion any less valid, but it does make it less factual(and yes, I know facts can be as subjective as opinions).

I think its irresponsible to break the law. Therefore if you go out on the razz and don't stop in time for the drink to get out of your system and get up, drive, get breathalyzed or worse cause an accident (regardless if the drink isn't what caused it), and are found to be over the limit, thats irresponsible to me.

It isn't irresoponsible to break the law, everyone breaks the law on a daily basis - especially drivers. It is however illegal to break the law, oft times stupid, and sometimes dangerous.

I've looked up the Mellanby Effect you mentioned and can't really argue with that. A question I would have though is how would you differentiate between someone driving in this circumstance and someone who has just had a few scoops and could well be impaired?

In america, if you're suspected of driving under the influence, they'll talk to you and ask you to perform a few actions to test you. They wont whip out a tube and ask you to blow on it.

But the short answer is, you can't differentiate - the thing is, with the current limit, the chances of you still having a BAC of 80mg after a good nights sleep is very very small, but having one of 50mg is an awful lot more likely.

What I meant by remembering you the next day is that you should stop in plenty of time for your body to completely be clear of alcohol. Then you don't need to worry about anything, Mellanby effect or not.

Alcohol lingers in the system long after the effects have worn off - like any drug.

I've stated my view earlier that I think that there should be a zero tolerance to remove all doubts. I guess my views are just stronger than others.

I don't believe in zero tolerance, I believe in setting reasonable limits, expecting people to behave responsibly, and screwing those who don't to the wall.

A housemate of my girlfriends last year had been drink driving since she was 18(she's only 21) and been stopped 5 times by the local guards in Clare.
Guess how many convictions she's gotten?

An opinion based on my beliefs/views on the subject. That's the definition of an opinion I believe.

I'm not arguing that, just simply seeing if you have anything else to bring to the argument.


To be honest, I've never drunk and drive. I have no interest in it, as I'm not much for drinking anyway. But I feel very, VERY strongly about the way laws are being changed to cut down on personal responsibility, and instead blanket ban things.

A car is a deadly weapon, a weapon that kills pretty much every day on our roads. That doesn't mean it should be banned, it means people should be educated on how to use them safely and properly - and those who can't, don't get the chance to do it again.

Mad_Max

Tragedy wrote: »

But the short answer is, you can't differentiate - the thing is, with the current limit, the chances of you still having a BAC of 80mg after a good nights sleep is very very small, but having one of 50mg is an awful lot more likely.

Alcohol lingers in the system long after the effects have worn off - like any drug.

I can only reply with personal experiences. I'd say 95% of the time I breathalyze myself after a night out I don't register a drop not even 50mg. The other 5% of the time that I do, it was after a serious session. I'm just trying to say that if you still have anything on you then you haven't had the appropriate time to recover and I don't think you should drive.

I can't claim to know the science behind it but would I be correct in suggesting that the difference between 50mg and 80mg would be a drink or two?
Then if that's the case, without wanting to over simplify it, either one or two drinks less or an hour or two longer to process the alcohol would mean 50mg would be no problem for anyone, seen as 80mg isn't much problem as you said yourself.

Tragedy wrote: »

A car is a deadly weapon, a weapon that kills pretty much every day on our roads. That doesn't mean it should be banned, it means people should be educated on how to use them safely and properly - and those who can't, don't get the chance to do it again.

I couldn't agree with that more. Its just that I believe driving with alcohol is misuse.

Tragedy

Mad_Max wrote: »

I can't claim to know the science behind it but would I be correct in suggesting that the difference between 50mg and 80mg would be a drink or two?

If you're still drinking, it is. If your BAC is decreasing, the difference isn't a drink or two. Can't really explain better, but the difference isn't one drink - it's only being allowed to have half the residue left in your system.

Then if that's the case, without wanting to over simplify it, either one or two drinks less or an hour or two longer to process the alcohol would mean 50mg would be no problem for anyone, seen as 80mg isn't much problem as you said yourself.

But there's no case for it, as there's no evidence that having 80mg the next morning has any detrimental effect on your ability to drive whatsoever.

I couldn't agree with that more. Its just that I believe driving with alcohol is misuse.

So is driving when tired.
So is driving when the weathers really bad.
So is driving when people are blinding you with their beams on a dark road.
So are many things.
Unfortunately.

Mad_Max

Tragedy wrote: »

So is driving when tired.
So is driving when the weathers really bad.
So is driving when people are blinding you with their beams on a dark road.
So are many things.
Unfortunately.

Can't argue there.

I understand your objection to blanket bans and removing personal responsibility though but look at the phone ban. I'll admit I often done it and never considered myself dangerous but some people would have been and a blanket rule was brought in. I consider it the same with alcohol and equally don't oppose a blanket ban.

bonkey

Tragedy wrote: »

the thing is, with the current limit, the chances of you still having a BAC of 80mg after a good nights sleep is very very small, but having one of 50mg is an awful lot more likely.

Is this based on some study, or just on an off-the-cuff calculation that one figure is almost twice the other, and therefore about half as likely to occur?