Drink Driving Limits

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?

Tragedy

bonkey wrote: »

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?

Half as likely? I never said half as likely, God knows how much more likely it is as
1)Very few people are tested the next morning
and
2)RSA and AGS have zero interest in releasing statistics like that. It's not good PR.

The rate at which alcohol decreases in the body is between 10 and 30mg per hour, decreasing it by 30mg means 60-180mins is being taken away from you the next morning.

No offence, but bollocks to that.

bonkey

Tragedy wrote: »

Half as likely? I never said half as likely, God knows how much more likely it is as
1)Very few people are tested the next morning
and
2)RSA and AGS have zero interest in releasing statistics like that. It's not good PR.

I know you never said "half"...but by virtue of provoking a response, you've shifted from arguing that one is "an awful lot more likely" than the other to saying that you've no real idea what the difference would be.

No offence, but bollocks to that.

No offence taken...but bollocks to what?

I asked the question I did to see how you arrived at the claim you did. You've made clear the lack of information on which you've based it.

amacachi

If you're drinking, don't drive. Simple as that.


Also, yes it is more likely to be in an accident with a vehicle with a non-drink-driver, though that's probably the best example of statistic-smudging I've ever heard.

dodgyme

I think the fact that Dempsey is emphasising the penalty points aspect if you are caught between the old limit and possibly new limits is a load of fudging horseS**t.

Leave the limits as they are and leave it at that. Police these limits and I think most people would be happy enough.

I cant even have one pint when out now and drive home, that is just crazy when looking at how the state neglects its duties in so many other areas.

ninty9er

dodgyme wrote: »

I cant even have one pint when out now and drive home,

Aw..poor you:rolleyes: Get someone else to drive you, or have a mineral ffs.

ninty9er

jape wrote: »

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.



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!!!".



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

They don't do post mortems on survivors with shattered lives

donkey balls

i have been driving since the early 90s if i lost my licence i would lose my job hence why i wont let a drop of the black stuff near me if i have to drive.

lads in the pub i used to go to would have a few and drive home they allways asked me if i wanted just one pint i refused on the basis that if i was involved in an rta the blame could lie with me(smell of drink of me).

as for Dempsey he has not got a clue see the highlighted piece below

THE DEPARTMENT of Transport has not revoked any haulage licences over the last two years despite being notified of over 14,000 infringements by British authorities and An Garda Síochána as reported by the Irish Times.


"When we met the Minister [for Transport] to discuss this matter two months ago he said that to revoke a licence could breach of the Constitution because it would harm that person's ability to earn a living."

jetfiremuck

I think that these limits are the start of an EEC conforming imprint being applied to Irelland fromc Europe. This like water charges because Europe says so is all part of the dictation that most of central Europe are used to and come to accept as part of everyday life. Does that make their lives better than ours? Look at the ineptness of the Irish central bank re interest rates. They had and have no control. Though Dempsey might be perceived as a clown he is simply following in lock step with the conforming Eurocrats

paddyland

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.

The more I think about this, the more disgusted I am.

Here is a minister on a solo run, flying in the face of many of his own backbenchers, and flying in the face of debate of an issue which affects so many people in so many ways. Dempsey has built a career running scared of debate, as any debate at all is likely to turn in a result in conflict with his own skewed political motives.

You simply cannot argue publicly against a proposal to reduce the drink driving limit. Yet there is an 80mg limit currently in place. We hear on a weekly basis of drivers stopped three and four times over the limit. These are the few who are stopped, given limited Garda reserves. How many get away scot free week after week?

We need to target these deliberate drink drivers, who care not a whit for any rule of law, or for the lives they deliberately put in danger. We do that by investing more resources in enforcing the current limit. That costs money, money the state simply doesn't have now, a seperate argument.

Reducing the drink drive limit will have no effect on the plague of drivers who deliberately put themselves three and four times over the limit, the very people we should be targetting ruthlessly. All it will serve to do is to criminalise a much larger section of relatively benign people who like one drink before driving home.

However, the real effect of this legislation is to put in the public arena, a very emotive and self serving piece of spin, serving to promote the career of one politician, namely minister Dempsey himself. This is NOT a FF motion, this is a solo run by Dempsey himself. Not only is he flying in the face of FF backbenchers, but he is putting his own party leader in a very difficult position, having to dampen down a new split in the party at just the very time FF is on it's knees.

This is a despicable, self serving thing for Dempsey to do. He demonstrates absolutely no loyalty even to his own party leader. Far from the FF general policy of party first, country second, Dempsey seems to operate on a basis of Dempsey first, party and everyone and everything else second.

This legislation will not make one whit of difference to drunk driving on our roads. There will be absolutely no practical benefit to this legislation. In a negative sense, it will target ordinary, and particularly rural based people who have taken drink awareness to their hearts, and stick to the one drink before heading home. Now they are criminalised, while the deliberate offenders bear no more sanction than they do at present. Not only that, but it puts the Gardai in a difficult position, particularly in rural areas, in having to charge and criminalise people on the side of the road who quite obviously do not merit such harsh treatment. I am talking about people who took one drink before driving home.

This legislation splits FF down the middle, and much as I have no respect for Brian Cowen, this knife in the side from his minister Dempsey is a despicable act.

It is a pity Dempsey would not use his ruthless determination to sort out the other screaming horrors in his brief, namely the shocking state of the railway industry, the bus licensing farce, the disintegration of the taxi industry, the ill thought out NTA proposals, the very questionable promotion of the interests of road toll companies over everything else in his brief, any one of which, if handled properly with some evident benefits to society at large, would give him the political gravitas he so desperately craves.

Instead, he prefers to be a media whore, flogging empty and unnecessary legislation for no gain to anyone except media spin for himself. The man is a low piece of work, even by FF standards. Cowen has no friend in this backstabbing toad, and God forbid he would ever be any kind of contender for the FF leadership. He is one of the worst examples of the depths of skewed agenda-eering in politics in this country.

starbelgrade

paddyland wrote: »

The more I think about this, the more disgusted I am.

Here is a minister on a solo run, flying in the face of many of his own backbenchers, and flying in the face of debate of an issue which affects so many people in so many ways. Dempsey has built a career running scared of debate, as any debate at all is likely to turn in a result in conflict with his own skewed political motives.

You simply cannot argue publicly against a proposal to reduce the drink driving limit. Yet there is an 80mg limit currently in place. We hear on a weekly basis of drivers stopped three and four times over the limit. These are the few who are stopped, given limited Garda reserves. How many get away scot free week after week?

We need to target these deliberate drink drivers, who care not a whit for any rule of law, or for the lives they deliberately put in danger. We do that by investing more resources in enforcing the current limit. That costs money, money the state simply doesn't have now, a seperate argument.

Reducing the drink drive limit will have no effect on the plague of drivers who deliberately put themselves three and four times over the limit, the very people we should be targetting ruthlessly. All it will serve to do is to criminalise a much larger section of relatively benign people who like one drink before driving home.

However, the real effect of this legislation is to put in the public arena, a very emotive and self serving piece of spin, serving to promote the career of one politician, namely minister Dempsey himself. This is NOT a FF motion, this is a solo run by Dempsey himself. Not only is he flying in the face of FF backbenchers, but he is putting his own party leader in a very difficult position, having to dampen down a new split in the party at just the very time FF is on it's knees.

This is a despicable, self serving thing for Dempsey to do. He demonstrates absolutely no loyalty even to his own party leader. Far from the FF general policy of party first, country second, Dempsey seems to operate on a basis of Dempsey first, party and everyone and everything else second.

This legislation will not make one whit of difference to drunk driving on our roads. There will be absolutely no practical benefit to this legislation. In a negative sense, it will target ordinary, and particularly rural based people who have taken drink awareness to their hearts, and stick to the one drink before heading home. Now they are criminalised, while the deliberate offenders bear no more sanction than they do at present. Not only that, but it puts the Gardai in a difficult position, particularly in rural areas, in having to charge and criminalise people on the side of the road who quite obviously do not merit such harsh treatment. I am talking about people who took one drink before driving home.

This legislation splits FF down the middle, and much as I have no respect for Brian Cowen, this knife in the side from his minister Dempsey is a despicable act.

It is a pity Dempsey would not use his ruthless determination to sort out the other screaming horrors in his brief, namely the shocking state of the railway industry, the bus licensing farce, the disintegration of the taxi industry, the ill thought out NTA proposals, the very questionable promotion of the interests of road toll companies over everything else in his brief, any one of which, if handled properly with some evident benefits to society at large, would give him the political gravitas he so desperately craves.

Instead, he prefers to be a media whore, flogging empty and unnecessary legislation for no gain to anyone except media spin for himself. The man is a low piece of work, even by FF standards. Cowen has no friend in this backstabbing toad, and God forbid he would ever be any kind of contender for the FF leadership. He is one of the worst examples of the depths of skewed agenda-eering in politics in this country.

I only ever skim read. A few bullet points would be nice.

Mad Finn

These proposed new limits are a disgrace, a pathetic thoughtless piety that purport to solve a serious problem but instead attack people who are not the source of the problem at all. By so doing, they are making the real problem worse. It's like trying to heal a wound by picking at the scab.

The real problem is the prevailing attitude in Ireland which sees the only purpose of alcohol as intoxication. We drink to get pissed, period. All of our attitudes and much of our legislation is predicated on the assumption that if one lets a morsel of alcoholic drink past one's lips one must be attempting to get blitzed. After all, why else would one be taking a drink in the first place?

This is nonsense, and is seen as such by many countries whose citizens have a much more tolerant, and much more mature attitude to alcohol than ourselves.

Italians, for example, do not drink to get pissed. They have wine with most meals, but when they celebrate momentous occasions, like winning the World Cup, they do not see the need to get tanked out of their trees. In sharp contrast to ourselves. Likewise the Spanish.

Next time either of those countries has a big footballing victory, watch the crowds. They'll celebrate like mad, set off enough firecrackers to launch a moon rocket and burn the horns out of their cars and motorbikes but very few of them will get pissed. It's not their style.

Here, thanks partly to a small minded self-interested publican's lobby, but mainly to our general inability as a society to accept the notion that there is such a thing as taking a civilised drink, the only place to get a casual drink is in a pub.

This reinforces the notion that the only reason to go to a public house is to drink and the only thing you can do once you are there is drink to excess. It's a vicious circle.

The notion of a civilised drink, such as a single pint of beer or a couple of glasses of wine with your evening meal is alien to many people here. And to the self righteous loony tunes who are drafting this legislation.

All these limits will achieve will be to inconvenience the civilised drinkers without making a single dent in the road accident statistics. I will not be able to have a beer with my evening meal in case I need to drive the kids somewhere later on. Going to a friend's house for dinner becomes a palaver involving taxis or abstention from one of the more agreeable parts of the evening instead of a simple car ride away.

So if you want to drink, goes the corollary, you plan in advance to have somebody transport you to the pub and once there you can get as bombed as you like. This is ipso facto binge drinking. And this legislation is encouraging it. It's madness.


At this point I should emphasise that I have no connection with the licensed trade or drinks industry and I do not live up the side of a mountain, I live pretty close to central Dublin. This is not a rural v urban issue. Nor is it one between conflicting interest groups such as vintners on one hand and the medical profession on the other.

This is a matter of personal freedom and responsibility: the freedom to do what you want within a reasonable legal framework and the responsibility to ensure that your actions do not cause inconvenience - or worse- to others.

Much of the histrionic finger wagging from the people on the restrictive side of the debate is simply self righteous twaddle, motivated by the same moralistic, hypocritical and heedless urges that caused earlier generations of our compatriots to ban the works of James Joyce (because of the danger to our immortal souls) or to refuse Monty Python's Life of Brian to be shown in cinemas here (I'm old enough to remember that one) or to debase the perscriptive powers of doctors to insist that harmless latex prophylactics were only to be made available on medical licence.

We eventually told those pious pricks to **** off and put their own houses in order and we should do the same to those who want to equate blameless civilised responsible people with irresponsible drunkards who drive when they are in absolutely no fit state to do so.

starbelgrade

Mad Finn wrote: »

Italians, for example, do not drink to get pissed. Likewise the Spanish.

When it comes to Ireland's "drinking culture", the myth that the Spanish of Italians being "responsible" drinkers is always bandied about, but it is complete nonsense. Having lived in both Spain & Italy for long periods, I know first hand that this is not true.

Yes, they drink wine with most meals, but they also drink drive & go on major benders. The only difference is, is that no-one knocks back 5 pints before closing time because the bar is about to close, because in Italy & Spain, there are effectively no closing times & you can party from Friday to Sunday evening without so much as stopping for a few tapas to keep you going.

Though they do help, soakage wise.

paddyland

starbelgrade wrote: »

I only ever skim read. A few bullet points would be nice.

My apologies.

Bullet 1. This legislation criminalises decent people.

Bullet 2. This legislation does not target drunk drivers.

Bullet 3. This legislation serves purely as spin for minister Dempsey.

Bullet 4. Minister Dempsey shows no loyalty to FF or his own party leader.

Bullet 5. I don't quite like Minister Dempsey.

Mad Finn

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

All having one pint does to anyone is gives them a hankering for one or two more. Which leads to idiotic decisions.

Speaking of idiotic......:rolleyes:

starbelgrade

paddyland wrote: »

My apologies.

Bullet 1. This legislation criminalises decent people.

Bullet 2. This legislation does not target drunk drivers.

Bullet 3. This legislation serves purely as spin for minister Dempsey.

Bullet 4. Minister Dempsey shows no loyalty to FF or his own party leader.

Bullet 5. I don't quite like Minister Dempsey.

LOL - I didn't actually expect that, but very much appreciated. Having read the bulet points, I have to say that agree with each one. On point 4, I can't really blame him, but point 5 negates that altogether.

Cheers!

Long Onion

I personally believe that a reduction in the blood alcohol limit is a good thing, but there is a broader issue.

The country was built on the backs of bachelor farmers through the misery of the 60's 70's and 80's. The model that appeared in many rural communities was that the elsest son stayed at home with the parents to help run the farm. They were often actually disuaded from marrying out of fear that the family farm would be lost or that the parents would have no-one to care for them.

When the parents eventually died, the eldest son was usually too old to find a companion, anyways, there were no sovial dating outlets for older farmers. The only social outlet such people have is the few pints in the local, and now this is being taken away also. I do not believe that this is an excuse to allow drink driving but I do firmly believe that the country owes a debt of gratitude to this forgotten generation.

By all means, introduce the new levels but do it in tandem with a proper rural transport scheme which will allow these men the opportunity to have the quiet pint. I would happily see some of my tax contribution fund this. Rather than see them sit at home in lonely isolation.

ednwireland

50mg - 1 pint will not put you over the limit

the only thing that will stop drink driving is enforcement (theres been lots of talk about the swiss reducing there limit and a 40% reduction in accidents, everyone conviniently forgets this was put in with a huge enforcement campaign and random breath testing)

if the gov want to continue with a campaign of 1 pint is 2 much they should reduce the limit to reflect this (prob 20mg dont know the exact figure)

Sizzler

The country is fundamentally bollixed and its taken a debate about drink driving to stir the majority of TD's into any sort of action. A f**king disgrace.

Jackie Healy Rae on the radio this morning outlining what a disgraceful measure this would be that rural people couldnt have 1 or 2 pints and drive home. Sums up all that is wrong with Irish politics at the moment. TD's really do choose their moments to shine dont they :rolleyes:

vinylrules

A couple of points to ponder.

Road deaths are down dramatically this year. There are almost 50 less deaths right now than at this time last year. It's looking like the total figure for 2009 will be about 238 - compared with 338 in 2007. This is a truly astonishing development - probably unprecedented compared with other countries. Figures from the Garda website under 'Traffic' (I'm pretty certain that had the lower limit been introduced last January the RSA would be claiming that the new limit had been responsible for the decline.)

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=138

We are now the 6th safest country for road deaths out of the 27 EU countries (according to RSA's Noel Brett on Pat Kenny yesterday) The UK is the third best practise country. Funny that both us and the UK have the 80mg alcohol limit. Meanwhile, many of the countries with lower limits have much worse fatality rates. Is this not "scientific" proof that the actual limits have little to do with fatalities?

Maybe, just maybe, the goodwill and support of the Irish people towards Random Breath Testing and the heavy enforcement of the current limits has something to do with our dramatic improvement. Maybe, just maybe, that support will dissipate if it is perceived that the law is unreasonable, draconian and targets the least dangerous offenders.

Mad Finn

vinylrules wrote: »

A couple of points to ponder.

Road deaths are down dramatically this year. There are almost 50 less deaths right now than at this time last year. It's looking like the total figure for 2009 will be about 238 - compared with 338 in 2007.


Maybe, just maybe, the goodwill and support of the Irish people towards Random Breath Testing and the heavy enforcement of the current limits has something to do with our dramatic improvement. Maybe, just maybe, that support will dissipate if it is perceived that the law is unreasonable, draconian and targets the least dangerous offenders.

Nail on the head. Most people tend to obey the laws when they think they are a good idea. And when they are properly enforced so that those who do keep them are not made to feel like suckers when those that don't get off scott free.

Case in point is the smoking ban. It is pretty well complied with because the majority of people, including smokers, accept that it is a good idea in general and that it has produced some benefits. For example, Irish publicans for the first time realising that there was an advantage to having tables outside the pub on a nice sunny day.

But if non smokers didn't mind smoke being blown in their faces and smokers didn't accept that their habit does have an effect on other people there might well have been strong resistance to this ban.

There is a difference with the proposed drink driving limits. It will do nothing to keep the real drunks off the road. Instead it will penalise those people who like the odd pint or glass of wine in moderation. These people are not incapacitated by alcohol. They should not be punished for the crimes of those who are.