Drink Driving Limits

Diogenes

starbelgrade wrote: »

By concept, do you mean the representational theory of mind or the semantic theory of concepts?

Yes because what this debate is the merits of Hobbes vs Tarski.

starbelgrade

Diogenes wrote: »

Yes because what this debate is the merits of Hobbes vs Tarski.

What does Eddie Hobbes have to do with it?

ninty9er

dodgyme wrote: »

Why do you think people go to the pub.? you need to get out more FFS

To socialise. I get out plenty thanks. I've been a student for the past 4 years.

Plenty of people go to pubs and don't drink. Why are you so special that you shouldn't be expected to?

jetfiremuck

this thread is running out of steam. Time to move on. Looks like 80mg is here for a while longer.

ART6

Mad Finn wrote: »

And how do they get home? Or do they just crash the night with you?

You might have noticed the word "local" in my comment. I don't have a circle of friends that is scattered all over Ireland:D

What I was actually getting at was that this arbitrary blood alcohol limit is simplistic and typical of the quality of regulation beloved of the cretins we call politicians nowadays. What is actually needed is legislation that nails the lunatics who think they can drink until they can't stand and then still drive.

SLUSK

It is the god given right of a proper Irish man to be drunk driving in his Honda Civic while wearing a tracksuit!

bonkey

Someone mentioned above that the estimated change in death-toll would be 18 people per year. Ignoring, for a moment, the question of injuries, I'd ask you to consider the reverse situation.

Imagine that the government was proposing an increase in the limit, from 80 to, say, 100. Their argument was as follows:

There are a large number of people who are currently criminals under the current law, because they are only slightly over the existing limit. By increasing the limits, we allow these people to become the honest, law-abiding citizens that we feel they should be. We also reduce the cost of needless court cases etc. prosecuting these people who aren't really any sifnicantly worse in terms of ability-to-drive then those who are just under the current limits. It is estimated that this legislation will only cost an additional 18 lives per year on our roads, but will increase the quality of life, and law-abidingness of large numbers of people who are currently discriminated against by nature of the incompatability of their social wants and the law. These people aren't hte problem anyway...its the people with far greater amounts of alcohol in their system who are, and this change in legislation won't do anything to prevent that.

How many people here who opposed the notion of dropping to 50 would support such legislation...and if not, why not? If you would support it....where do you draw the limits? How many times are 18 additional lives payable before we reach a point where we say "too many people are dying because of where we placed the limit"

Villain

jetfiremuck wrote: »

this thread is running out of steam. Time to move on. Looks like 80mg is here for a while longer.

Well actually the North Minister for Enviroment was on Morning Ireland and he was pretty p1ssed off that they were using the North for a reason not to do it and said they were looking at reducing it to 50mg in under a few months and also possibly 20mg for provisional and professional drivers.

They might have to find another excuse, although I half think Ahern and Cowen knew that and thought lets use it as an excuse to keep backbenchers happy until after the BUdget and then the North will do it and we will follow.

vinylrules

bonkey wrote: »

How many people here who opposed the notion of dropping to 50 would support such legislation...and if not, why not? If you would support it....where do you draw the limits? How many times are 18 additional lives payable before we reach a point where we say "too many people are dying because of where we placed the limit"

There is a precedent for this actually. After the re-unificaiton of Germany the former East German territory increased the drink drive limits from zero to 80mgs and there was a rise in road deaths. The price of freedom - I suppose!
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/MISC/driving/s15p4.htm

The unification of the West and East Germany has provided an interesting natural experiment for studying the relationship between legal and extra-legal factors and drinking-driving crash rates. Prior to unification, both countries had differing drinking-driving legislation and BAC limits. In the former West Germany, the penal code did not allow driving under the influence of alcohol and other drugs; the penalties could be up to 2 years imprisonment or a fine. The BAC limit was .08%. On the other hand, the former East Germany prohibited driving under the influence of any alcohol (BAC = .0%). After the German unification, the zero-BAC law remained in effect until December 31, 1992, after which the .08% law came into effect.
Despite the fact that the .08 law did not come into effect until 1992, the 1990 unification saw a sharp increase in crash rates in the former East Germany, but no similar increase in the former West Germany. Different secondary data sets have been gathered reflecting on the extra-legal factors of moral commitment to the law, group support, economic conditions, alcohol consumption levels, vehicle ownership and kilometers driven. The paper will be presenting the relationships among the various factors and regression analyses will be identifying the extra-legal predictors of the increased alcohol-related crash rates in the former East Germany.

optocynic

SeanW wrote: »

Condolences for the loss of your friend. But please spare us the emotional hyperbole - was your friend killed by someone with a BAC of between 50 & 80? Or was the driver in question totally fluted?

Because I suspect that - like most drunk drivers - he/she was way over any sensible limit.

As to "if it saves ONE life" ... well guess what? If we all stayed in bed all day and wraped ourselves in cotton wool, noone would ever die on the roads or in accidents or anything, but I dare say life would be not much worth living. Any right thinking person must reject the Nanny State completely, totally and without reservation.

So there HAS to be a balance ... and that is even if lowering the limit will save lives which in itself is very much speculation and guesstimation. We have enough bad law the case for it made with emotional hyperbole - remember the mushroom ban?

Some tosser in Dublin took a small amount of magic mushrooms, a huge amount of alcohol, died in an accident (fell out a window or something) then after tea and a cry-in with the clowns family, Mary Harney Minister for Health, issued a ban on magic mushrooms. Doesn't matter to me because I'd never touch the damn things, but it's none of my business if someone else does.

You seem to be quiet the selfish, obtuse and arrogant type...

Answer the question.. why do these people NEED to have a drink?
Can they not just drink sparkling water?

Or why not get a cab... lots of them available now, any time of day?

Or why don't the pubs all arrange a minibus to bring punters home??

Answer those questions with sensible positions...

As for the magic mushrooms thing... I hold the same position as anyone with a brain.. I have no problem with them.. I don't care if people put their own life in danger... I care when they put other's lives in danger.. all for the sake of a pint!...

wolfpawnat

It needs to be lowered. I lived nearly 1.5 miles from a main road and 2 miles from the nearest pub. My nights out were spent in Dingle town, which were a full 14km from my home and I would rather wait 2hours in the pouring rain than risk the lives of others and/or myself. It is selfish to drink and drive. I cannot see how people NEED to drink on a night out. Most of my fun nights out are when I am sober!

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

Quit with the BS please. you are not showing your are very mature with it.




No they are not. If they were we wouldnt be having this debate. Its a debate about the amount your are allowed to have in your system. You set your rules good for you.



What has your age got to do with it?



Oh you manged to buy a car in your thirties - now I get it. In you 20's, no car, so you couldnt drink and drive. Now you are in your 30's and mature you dont want to. Oh and you live in dublin so that makes it handy.

I'm sorry... but nothing in that reply made any sense...

This is simple... If you have even one drink.. you are impared.. even if you feel fine.. this is a fact.. ask the experts!
If you drink and drive.. you are a scumbag... putting other's lives in danger for the sake of a pint!..

vinylrules

optocynic wrote: »

I'm sorry... but nothing in that reply made any sense...

This is simple... If you have even one drink.. you are impared.. even if you feel fine.. this is a fact.. ask the experts!
If you drink and drive.. you are a scumbag... putting other's lives in danger for the sake of a pint!..

Actually, the experts also say that your body eliminates one standard drink per hour (some people eliminate it even quicker). Therefore someone having a glass of wine with a meal and driving, say an hour and a half later, has zero alcohol in their system. Zero alcohol = no drink driving , which means no impairment.

Generally, people don't drink and drive at the same time - they drink and then drive some time later. How much later is what matters. If I had two pints in the pub before Springsteen's three-hour concert (getting into the RDS half an hour before show-time) and drive half an hour after the concert ends, there would be zero alcohol in my system. How do I know this? It happened to me - was breathalized on the way home from the show and the reading was zero, nada, zilch. Same for somone having a drink at lunchtime and driving home four hours later.
Please everyone, stop this hysteria about what tiny amounts of alcohol can do. Excess alcohol is what causes most of the problems - the law of diminishing returns is reached long before you get down to zero tolerence. And rembember it takes the same Garda time to process someone at teh very lower end of the scale as someone who is several times the limit. Also can everyone google "The Borkenstein Dip" - which indicates that small amounts of alcohol in present in drivers appears to amount to less accidents. (see below)


A feature of these figures that has intrigued statisticians is the reduction in accident risk between 10 mg and 40 mg, sometimes referred to as the "Borkenstein dip". This is certainly valid, not just a statistical quirk, and has been reinforced by other studies. However, it is unlikely really to indicate that consuming a small amount of alcohol will make you a slightly better driver. It is probably a combination of the fact that people driving after one or two small drinks are likely to be driving at times when the roads are quieter than average, and that they may try to compensate for the alcohol by making an effort to drive more carefully than usual. But this underlines the fact that, at these low levels, alcohol does not impair driving ability at all.
¶ R F Borkenstein et al: The Role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents (Bloomington, Indiana University, Department of Police Administration, 1964)

Diogenes

starbelgrade wrote: »

What does Eddie Hobbes have to do with it?

I was actually referring to this Hobbes.

dodgyme wrote:

Oh you manged to buy a car in your thirties - now I get it. In you 20's, no car, so you couldnt drink and drive. Now you are in your 30's and mature you dont want to. Oh and you live in dublin so that makes it handy.

No I live in London. And I don't own a car. You're making a tremendous amount of assumptions.

KC JONES

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Spare a thought for your country cousins, there is no public transport, would like us all to walk home on unlit roads in bad weather. .

get a high vis vest

SeanW

optocynic wrote: »

You seem to be quiet the selfish, obtuse and arrogant type...

I don't mince my words. If that makes me sound "selfish, obtuse and arrogant" I apologise. Like I said though, I never drink-drive and have no interest in doing so. My only concern is that we should make law based on evidence and facts.

As for the magic mushrooms thing... I hold the same position as anyone with a brain.. I have no problem with them.. I don't care if people put their own life in danger... I care when they put other's lives in danger.. all for the sake of a pint!...

Fair enough. But the point I was making was that when emotion influences law, bad law like the mushroom ban is often the result. I mean no disrespect to you or your friend.

What's more, I'm not saying don't cut the limit - all I'm looking for is that the change should be based on evidence & facts. Specifically, I would like some proponents of a lowered limit to give statistics on how many people die as a result of accidents caused by drivers with BACs of between .50 and .80. If the number is significantly higher than for example, fataliaties per 100,000km than non-drinkers (or indeed most any other metric you choose), then we need to cut the limit, whereas if it is not, then the change is not justifiable.

Answer the question.. why do these people NEED to have a drink?
Can they not just drink sparkling water?

Priests must consume unused church wine as part of Sunday ceremonies. People use mouthwash. Some like to have a glass of wine with a meal. Certain desserts use alcohol in the recipe. Cough medicines frequently use alcohol. Rarely, some people have medical conditions that cause their bodies to produce alcohol 'naturally' or so I read on one of these boards a while back. Plus, this is Ireland and a lot of life - particularly in rural areas and among older people - revolves around the pub. Which is unfortunate.

WRT the statistics I consider necessary for this evaluation, if no statistics are available then we should start by implementing mandatory alcohol testing at accident scenes. That way we could find out farily sharp-ish just how many accidents are caused by .50-.80 drink drivers.

Liam Byrne

bonkey wrote: »

Someone mentioned above that the estimated change in death-toll would be 18 people per year. Ignoring, for a moment, the question of injuries, I'd ask you to consider the reverse situation.

Imagine that the government was proposing an increase in the limit, from 80 to, say, 100.

Ironically, Dempsey has almost proposed this, by suggesting that "up to 100mg" would be treated differently. And given my stunned reaction to that part of the proposal, it's fair to say that I disagree with it.

The fact is that there are MANY things that can lead up to 18 deaths per year, or more, one of them being driving itself.

Should we ban driving too ?

A pedestrian running across the road can get themselves killed, but if it wasn't possible to miss them, leaves a huge impact on the driver; should we criminalise making the choice to run across the road ?

The only reason I mentioned 18 was because someone mentioned 100; I've said that I'm not happy with 18 deaths, and I don't want to trivialise that, but it's just a case of stating the facts.

optocynic

vinylrules wrote: »

Actually, the experts also say that your body eliminates one standard drink per hour (some people eliminate it even quicker). Therefore someone having a glass of wine with a meal and driving, say an hour and a half later, has zero alcohol in their system. Zero alcohol = no drink driving , which means no impairment.

Generally, people don't drink and drive at the same time - they drink and then drive some time later. How much later is what matters. If I had two pints in the pub before Springsteen's three-hour concert (getting into the RDS half an hour before show-time) and drive half an hour after the concert ends, there would be zero alcohol in my system. How do I know this? It happened to me - was breathalized on the way home from the show and the reading was zero, nada, zilch. Same for somone having a drink at lunchtime and driving home four hours later.
Please everyone, stop this hysteria about what tiny amounts of alcohol can do. Excess alcohol is what causes most of the problems - the law of diminishing returns is reached long before you get down to zero tolerence. And rembember it takes the same Garda time to process someone at teh very lower end of the scale as someone who is several times the limit. Also can everyone google "The Borkenstein Dip" - which indicates that small amounts of alcohol in present in drivers appears to amount to less accidents. (see below)


A feature of these figures that has intrigued statisticians is the reduction in accident risk between 10 mg and 40 mg, sometimes referred to as the "Borkenstein dip". This is certainly valid, not just a statistical quirk, and has been reinforced by other studies. However, it is unlikely really to indicate that consuming a small amount of alcohol will make you a slightly better driver. It is probably a combination of the fact that people driving after one or two small drinks are likely to be driving at times when the roads are quieter than average, and that they may try to compensate for the alcohol by making an effort to drive more carefully than usual. But this underlines the fact that, at these low levels, alcohol does not impair driving ability at all.
¶ R F Borkenstein et al: The Role of the Drinking Driver in Traffic Accidents (Bloomington, Indiana University, Department of Police Administration, 1964)

So, you think it is OK to drink and drive?
Why can't people just avoid booze when driving? Is it really that hard to not drink?

optocynic

SeanW wrote: »

Priests must consume unused church wine as part of Sunday ceremonies. People use mouthwash. Some like to have a glass of wine with a meal. Certain desserts use alcohol in the recipe. Cough medicines frequently use alcohol. Plus, this is Ireland and a lot of life - particularly in rural areas and among older people - revolves around the pub. Which is unfortunate.

WRT the statistics I consider necessary for this evaluation, if no statistics are available then we should start by implementing mandatory alcohol testing at accident scenes. That way we could find out farily sharp-ish just how many accidents are caused by .50-.80 drink drivers.

So, basically you don't think it is 'worth it' to change the law?... Unless we can show you the mangled remains of a person?

As for testing at all accidents... please.... reactionary, why not be proactive??

SeanW

optocynic wrote: »

So, basically you don't think it is 'worth it' to change the law?... Unless we can show you the mangled remains of a person?

No. I'm just asking that if the limit is lowered, it should be on the basis of evidence and facts. We've had an .80 limit for years now, and we should have adequate information.

As for testing at all accidents... please.... reactionary, why not be proactive??

I agree but we have to start somewhere. Additionally I too would like to see more random breath testing checkpoints, if that's what you mean.

optocynic

SeanW wrote: »

No. I'm just asking that if the limit is lowered, it should be on the basis of evidence and facts. We've had an .80 limit for years now, and we should have adequate information.

That is not the aim of the legislation in my mind. It is a much needed deterent to the ingrained Irish mentality to drinking. Right now, you can have 1 pint... and still 'drive'... We can't trust the average Joe to stop at 1 pint. We should completely remove the temptation to drink and drive at all!!!.. Like I said before, if it saves just one life.. it is more than worth it!

SeanW wrote: »

I agree but we have to start somewhere. Additionally I too would like to see more random breath testing checkpoints, if that's what you mean.

We should have checkpoints outside every Pub car park... those car parks are always full.. do they really think the pubs sell that much coke?..
Proactive life saving.. rather that reactive blame storming!!!

SeanW

optocynic wrote: »

That is not the aim of the legislation in my mind.

You're right, it isn't. And that's why we have so much bad law already.

It is a much needed deterent to the ingrained Irish mentality to drinking. Right now, you can have 1 pint... and still 'drive'... We can't trust the average Joe to stop at 1 pint. We should completely remove the temptation to drink and drive at all!!!

So what you're say is, that if it were (hypothetically speaking) to be shown that the rate of accidents/fatalities were equal or close for 0 and, for example .51 driving, per X kilometers driven, that you would consider this irrelevant?

It remains my strong suspicion that the majority of accidents/fatalities are caused by people way over the limit and driving really crazy. Like this clown.

Besides as I showed above there are plenty of reasons for a person to have alcohol that have nothing to do with getting loaded down the pub.

We should have checkpoints outside every Pub car park... those car parks are always full.. do they really think the pubs sell that much coke?..
Proactive life saving.. rather that reactive blame storming!!!

Why not do both? Save lives AND collect hard information?

dodgyme

ninty9er wrote: »

Plenty of people go to pubs and don't drink. Why are you so special that you shouldn't be expected to?

Oh I feel really special going to a pub and expecting to have a drink? Fact is we are talking about limits.

Most people I know will have a pint and maybe a few non alco beers and head home if they are driving.

I also think alot wouldnt bother going out if they couldnt have atleast one pint in these situations.

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

Oh I feel really special going to a pub and expecting to have a drink? Fact is we are talking about limits.

Most people I know will have a pint and maybe a few non alco beers and head home if they are driving.

I also think alot wouldnt bother going out if they couldnt have atleast one pint in these situations.

And what is wrong with that? Do you have to go to the pub to have a full life? Can you not have a drink at home with your better half and have a chat..
And if you really need to go to the boozer, why not walk... take a taxi... or better yet... drink something other than booze..??

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

This is simple... If you have even one drink.. you are impared.. even if you feel fine.. this is a fact.. ask the experts!!..

The argument is about the degree of impairment. The limits are there to qualify these. No need to ask experts, its the law.

optocynic wrote: »

If you drink and drive.. you are a scumbag... putting other's lives in danger for the sake of a pint!..

Well the law doesnt argee with you so perhaps you should picket your local garda station or pub since you seem to feel so so strongly about it.

optocynic

SeanW wrote: »

You're right, it isn't. And that's why we have so much bad law already.

So what you're say is, that if it were (hypothetically speaking) to be shown that the rate of accidents/fatalities were equal or close for 0 and, for example .51 driving, per X kilometers driven, that you would consider this irrelevant?

It remains my strong suspicion that the majority of accidents/fatalities are caused by people way over the limit and driving really crazy. Like this clown.

Besides as I showed above there are plenty of reasons for a person to have alcohol that have nothing to do with getting loaded down the pub.

Why not do both? Save lives AND collect hard information?

That is VERY hypothetical... be honest, we all know people who get pissed on a barman's fart!!.. This is the problem with your statistics when it comes to physiology... no two people are the same.. and I would argue that there are people out there who should not even have half a pint and get behind the wheel...

There is also the issue you mentioned about foods etc.. like Tirimasu.. with loads of booze in it.. I guess we will all need to use the Taxi's more... It appears there is now loads of them available...

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

The argument is about the degree of impairment. The limits are there to qualify these. No need to ask experts, its the law.

Well the law doesnt argee with you so perhaps you should picket your local garda station or pub since you seem to feel so so strongly about it.

We are trying to change the law... to save lives...

Are you so opposed to change... so desperate to drink and drive that you would happily let people die on the roads?

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

And what is wrong with that? Do you have to go to the pub to have a full life? Can you not have a drink at home with your better half and have a chat..
And if you really need to go to the boozer, why not walk... take a taxi... or better yet... drink something other than booze..??

Can you stop telling me what to do and deal with the argument - which is about limits. IMO the old limit of 2ish pints and be ok to drive according to the law was fine. Then they lowered them to 80.

However that limit is there now and I dont think they should be lowered anymore I think that it will have zero effect.

A question - is everyone who is between 50 and 80 a scumbag in your analysis?

vinylrules

optocynic wrote: »

So, you think it is OK to drink and drive?
Why can't people just avoid booze when driving? Is it really that hard to not drink?

No, I think it's perfectly OK to have a drink and drive much later on - when the alcohol has been completely eliminated from your body. Why wouldn't it be?

Unless of course there is another agenda at work here - namely the anti-alcohol movement which has latched onto the drink drivng thing big time. It's well documented in the US where MADD a neo-prohbitionist group have been hugely influential in the States for such things as raising the alcohol age limit to 21. The disproportionate, inconsistant level of penalties for drink-driving related offences compared with other equally dangerous activities betrays a strong bias against drinkers.

Did you know that the accident risk of driving between the 50mg limit and 80mg limit is the same as the risk for driving at 65kph in a 60Kph zone?
Seems to me we could save a ton of lives by dramatically cutting speed limits but since this would involve everyone and we can't wag the finger and tut tut at a minority, it just won't happen:

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/exec.html

Our results show that the risk of involvement in a casualty crash is twice as great at 65 km/h as it is at 60 km/h, and four times as great at 70 km/h….
It is instructive to compare the extent to which the risk of involvement in a casualty crash varies with a driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and with travelling at a speed above the speed limit. Comparable case control studies on speed and alcohol have not been conducted in the same city anywhere else in the world. The results of these two studies indicate that if the blood alcohol concentration is multiplied by 100, and the resulting number is added to 60 km/h, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash associated with that free travelling speed is almost the same as the risk associated with the blood alcohol concentration. Hence, the risk is similar for 0.05 and 65; for 0.08 and 68; for .12 and 72, and so on.
Given that the relative risk of involvement in a casualty crash at 72 km/h is similar to that for a BAC of 0.12, it is more than a little incongruous that the penalty for the BAC offence is a $500-$900 fine and automatic licence disqualification for at least six months while the penalty for the speeding offence is only a $110 fine

Hands-free phones are as dangerous as being over the drink-drive limit but are permitted. Why? Not because they're not dangerous but because they're well nigh impossible to enforce. It's the same with low levels of alcohol.

I'm doing my best to back up my opionions on research and on the facts rather than on hysterical emotions. There are acres of research on all of the different things that can cause crashes - fast loud music for example. See here:http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/exec.html

Yesterdays Irish Times editorial quoted statistics regarding Switzerland who apparently saw a 44% drop in fatalities when they lowered the limit. They compared three years before and after the change Again I looked it up and discovered that (a) there had already been a downward trend (b) Random Breath Testing was introduced at the same time with a massive increase in enforcement (we already have RBT with little chance of an increase in enforcement - Garda overtime cuts etc.) If you look at our own statistics you will see that there will be at least a 44% drop in deaths over the last few years compared to the early part of this decade.

As for the Borkenstein Dip - this is just a fact that is presumably taken into account when laws like this are being devised. Finally here's another one to make your head explode. Did you know that frequent drinkers are safer than infrequent drinkers - even at zero alcohol levels!! That's right - regular drinkers are safer drivers than non-regular drinkers even when they have no drink in them when driving. (I don't know the explantion either - maybe they're more chilled, relaxed, less uptight people in general.) See here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7999209
"However more frequent drinkers have less risk at all blood alcohol concentration levels, including zero, than less frequent drinkers at the times and places sampled."

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

Can you stop telling me what to do and deal with the argument - which is about limits. IMO the old limit of 2ish pints and be ok to drive according to the law was fine. Then they lowered them to 80.

However that limit is there now and I dont think they should be lowered anymore I think that it will have zero effect.

A question - is everyone who is between 50 and 80 a scumbag in your analysis?

Anyone who drinks and drives, in my opinion.. is a scumbag..
Putting other people at risk of death. (A horrible, painful death too) just so you can have a drink is a selfish monster!

It is the mentality that it is OK to drink and drive we need to change!

How do you know a change will have zero effect?

optocynic

vinylrules wrote: »

No, I think it's perfectly OK to have a drink and drive much later on - when the alcohol has been completely eliminated from your body. Why wouldn't it be?

Unless of course there is another agenda at work here - namely the anti-alcohol movement which has latched onto the drink drivng thing big time. It's well documented in the US where MADD a neo-prohbitionist group have been hugely influential in the States for such things as raising the alcohol age limit to 21. The disproportionate, inconsistant level of penalties for drink-driving related offences compared with other equally dangerous activities betrays a strong bias against drinkers.

Did you know that the accident risk of driving between the 50mg limit and 80mg limit is the same as the risk for driving at 65kph in a 60Kph zone?
Seems to me we could save a ton of lives by dramatically cutting speed limits but since this would involve everyone and we can't wag the finger and tut tut at a minority, it just won't happen:

http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/exec.html

Our results show that the risk of involvement in a casualty crash is twice as great at 65 km/h as it is at 60 km/h, and four times as great at 70 km/h….
It is instructive to compare the extent to which the risk of involvement in a casualty crash varies with a driver's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and with travelling at a speed above the speed limit. Comparable case control studies on speed and alcohol have not been conducted in the same city anywhere else in the world. The results of these two studies indicate that if the blood alcohol concentration is multiplied by 100, and the resulting number is added to 60 km/h, the risk of involvement in a casualty crash associated with that free travelling speed is almost the same as the risk associated with the blood alcohol concentration. Hence, the risk is similar for 0.05 and 65; for 0.08 and 68; for .12 and 72, and so on.
Given that the relative risk of involvement in a casualty crash at 72 km/h is similar to that for a BAC of 0.12, it is more than a little incongruous that the penalty for the BAC offence is a $500-$900 fine and automatic licence disqualification for at least six months while the penalty for the speeding offence is only a $110 fine

Hands-free phones are as dangerous as being over the drink-drive limit but are permitted. Why? Not because they're not dangerous but because they're well nigh impossible to enforce. It's the same with low levels of alcohol.

I'm doing my best to back up my opionions on research and on the facts rather than on hysterical emotions. There are acres of research on all of the different things that can cause crashes - fast loud music for example. See here:http://casr.adelaide.edu.au/speed/exec.html

Yesterdays Irish Times editorial quoted statistics regarding Switzerland who apparently saw a 44% drop in fatalities when they lowered the limit. They compared three years before and after the change Again I looked it up and discovered that (a) there had already been a downward trend (b) Random Breath Testing was introduced at the same time with a massive increase in enforcement (we already have RBT with little chance of an increase in enforcement - Garda overtime cuts etc.) If you look at our own statistics you will see that there will be at least a 44% drop in deaths over the last few years compared to the early part of this decade.

As for the Borkenstein Dip - this is just a fact that is presumably taken into account when laws like this are being devised. Finally here's another one to make your head explode. Did you know that frequent drinkers are safer than infrequent drinkers - even at zero alcohol levels!! That's right - regular drinkers are safer drivers than non-regular drinkers even when they have no drink in them when driving. (I don't know the explantion either - maybe they're more chilled, relaxed, less uptight people in general.) See here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7999209
"However more frequent drinkers have less risk at all blood alcohol concentration levels, including zero, than less frequent drinkers at the times and places sampled."

Well, I can safely say, I am not anti-alcohol... I am anti drink-driving!
I am also anti-speeding... another a55hole passtime in this country!!!

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

We are trying to change the law... to save lives...

No they are not. Its politicians playing with this and has a number of organsitions backing it because the nature of thes organisations have to back it. Hardly see the AA (the motoring group) disagreeing with it?

If they want to save life they should police the roads more and the limits as they are, they should tackle all the foreign reg cars which seem to get off for every offence because the car is a foreign reg. They should clampdown on drug driving and stop sitting on the M50 when they need to fill the end of month quotas. Stop the lazy policing might help and more enforcement in newer areas like drug driving, idiots doing doughnuts on every crossroads in the country etc.

bonkey

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ironically, Dempsey has almost proposed this, by suggesting that "up to 100mg" would be treated differently. And given my stunned reaction to that part of the proposal, it's fair to say that I disagree with it.

But why do you disagree with it?

Other than that you seem to support the status quo in both situations, we have two scenarios where you have a lower and an higher tolerance. The lower tolerance leads to fewer deaths, and the higher to more deaths. In one case, you choose the lower. In the other you choose the higher.

Why is there a difference?

Could it be that the difference between 50 and 80 is that it would directly effect your own situation with regards to the legality of your drinking-and-driving habits, whereas the difference between 80 and 100 is that it would only effect others?

I'm genuinely curious, because from what I can see if the law was set to 50, you'd apparently be in support of raising it back to 80 (at the estimated cost of 18 lives per year). However, the law is 80, and if raising it to 100 meant another 18 lives a year, you've just clarified that you'd oppose that.

The fact is that there are MANY things that can lead up to 18 deaths per year, or more, one of them being driving itself.

Should we ban driving too ?

That would be analagous to suggesting we should ban alcohol...which no-one is suggesting.

Maybe you'd care to pick a less straw-mannish example?

If, for example, we found that we could save some lives / prevent some accidents by lowering speed-limits from 50 to 30 in urban and suburban housing areas (if that's not already done), and to 20 around schools and hospitals...would I support it? Abso-frickin-lutely...regardless of how it might inconvenience some.

A pedestrian running across the road can get themselves killed, but if it wasn't possible to miss them, leaves a huge impact on the driver; should we criminalise making the choice to run across the road ?

Frankly, I think we should seriously consider it.

We should clearly define areas (e.g. housing) where pedestrians have unquestioned right of way at all times. In all other areas, then it should be a punishable offence to run out into traffic in urban areas where there are facilities for safely crossing a road provided.

If that means that Joe Bloggs has to walk an extra couple of hundred metres to get to/from a pedestrian crossing, then so ****ing what.

Its an interesting example that you pick, though....because where I live it is a punishable offence...just as it is for a driver to go through a pedestrian crossing when there's someone standing on the kerb. You can lose your license over not stopping when there's someone waiting to cross....and the pedestrian who runs out across a busy road can be fined.

And those "pedestrian have right of way" areas? We have those too...with 20km/h limits.

I'm sure some people will complain about the nanny-stateness of it all...but I'll also nod at the post earlier which mentioned that Switzerland was one of the sanest nations around at times.

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

Anyone who drinks and drives, in my opinion.. is a scumbag..

can you just answer the q?

is everyone who is between 50 and 80 a scumbag in your analysis?

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

No they are not. Its politicians playing with this and has a number of organsitions backing it because the nature of thes organisations have to back it. Hardly see the AA (the motoring group) disagreeing with it?

If they want to save life they should police the roads more and the limits as they are, they should tackle all the foreign reg cars which seem to get off for every offence because the car is a foreign reg. They should clampdown on drug driving and stop sitting on the M50 when they need to fill the end of month quotas. Stop the lazy policing might help and more enforcement in newer areas like drug driving, idiots doing doughnuts on every crossroads in the country etc.

I don't know... I think any effort to save lives is worth trying!
Drug drivers are equal scumbags in my eyes...
As are speeders, and little boy racers, and angry auld-fella bullies..

These ALL need to be tackled..
..but let's start here with the drink-driving mentality/culture...

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

can you just answer the q?

is everyone who is between 50 and 80 a scumbag in your analysis?

I did!

SeanW

optocynic wrote: »

That is VERY hypothetical

True, but since we do not have hard information, the question remains valid - where is the proof that driving in the .50-.80 range is more likely to cause death than the 0-.50 range? Without this information, hypothetical questions are in order.

If the evidence were to show nonexistent or marginal differences between the aforementioed ranges, or if it were shown that the majority of drink-driving accidents/deaths were caused by people far over the current limit (like JimMcDaid on the N4), would you still call for the reduction?

... be honest, we all know people who get pissed on a barman's fart!!.. This is the problem with your statistics when it comes to physiology... no two people are the same.. and I would argue that there are people out there who should not even have half a pint and get behind the wheel...

Which is precisely why we have BAC limits in the firstplace, and not pints or any other measure.

There is also the issue you mentioned about foods etc.. like Tirimasu.. with loads of booze in it.. I guess we will all need to use the Taxi's more... It appears there is now loads of them available...

Perhaps, but I would prefer if such necessities were imposed by reasoned-law.

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

I did!

so everyone who is between 50 and 80 a scumbag in your analysis!:rolleyes:

bonkey

Folks...I'm going to remind people one last time...do not make this personal.

From this point on, no more warnings.

optocynic

SeanW wrote: »

True, but since we do not have hard information, the question remains valid - where is the proof that driving in the .50-.80 range is more likely to cause death than the 0-.50 range? Without this information, hypothetical questions are in order.

If the evidence were to show nonexistent or marginal differences between the aforementioed ranges, or if it were shown that the majority of drink-driving accidents/deaths were caused by people far over the current limit (like JimMcDaid on the N4), would you still call for the reduction?

Which is precisely why we have BAC limits in the firstplace, and not pints or any other measure.

Perhaps, but I would prefer if such necessities were imposed by reasoned-law.

An effort to save lives is 'reasoned law'...
Is it not worth trying?

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

I don't know... I think any effort to save lives is worth trying!
Drug drivers are equal scumbags in my eyes...
As are speeders, and little boy racers, and angry auld-fella bullies..

These ALL need to be tackled..
..but let's start here with the drink-driving mentality/culture...

we only have finite resources and I think there are much better uses then starting with drink driving, which has been looked at over and over again whilst ignoring other issues like lack of policing on secondary roads,boy racers, drug driving, foreign reg cars etc. Much better uses of resources I think and more lives saved. But you'd rather keep it on drink driving.

In your opinion drug drivers are only equal scumbags to someone who has had one pint?

Diogenes

dodgyme wrote: »

No they are not. Its politicians playing with this and has a number of organsitions backing it because the nature of thes organisations have to back it. Hardly see the AA (the motoring group) disagreeing with it?

If they want to save life they should police the roads more and the limits as they are, they should tackle all the foreign reg cars which seem to get off for every offence because the car is a foreign reg. They should clampdown on drug driving and stop sitting on the M50 when they need to fill the end of month quotas. Stop the lazy policing might help and more enforcement in newer areas like drug driving, idiots doing doughnuts on every crossroads in the country etc.

And

Can you stop telling me what to do and deal with the argument - which is about limits. IMO the old limit of 2ish pints and be ok to drive according to the law was fine. Then they lowered them to 80.

Well that might be okayish with you. But the European Transit Safety Authority and the statistics don't agree with you.



We've seen a significant drop since legislation changed.

However.

Ireland is ranked as one of the worst countries in Europe for alcohol related road crash deaths by the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) who monitors the progress of European countries in tackling drink-driving fatalities.

Their report reveals that we are 5th highest out of 27 countries for drink-driving deaths and the worst for collisions involving 17-24 year olds.

You can rant and rave about 2pints ish is fine, and the Garda should be doing their jobs, but theres a thing called personal responsibility. If you get behind the wheel of car don't drink.

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

so everyone who is between 50 and 80 a scumbag in your analysis!:rolleyes:

You catch on fast... but like the Moderator said, this should not be personal..

I don't care what BAC people are at. Drink driving puts others at risk of violent and painful death... that kind or selfish arrogance is dispicable!

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

You catch on fast... but like the Moderator said, this should not be personal.. !

I didnt make it personal, you used the word 'scumbag' and then qualified that you thought anyone between 50-80 in the limits was one. I disagree!

I think there is better uses of resources out there.

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

I don't care what BAC people are at. !

dont know why you are arguing with people then. But usually in a debate on limits of alcohol I would care what BAC people are at as does the legisalators?

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

I didnt make it personal, you used the word 'scumbag' and then qualified that you thought anyone between 50-80 in the limits was one. I disagree!

I think there is better uses of resources out there.

The aim of the legislation is to stop people drinking at all when they have their car!
Just get a taxi!
Or Walk..

Why are you opposed to that?

SeanW

optocynic wrote: »

An effort to save lives is 'reasoned law'...
Is it not worth trying?

By "reason" I meant logic, facts, evidence, hard evidence to show that a change would be beneficial. I should have thought that was obvious. In any case, can you answer the questions in my last post please?

Why are you opposed to that?

I oppose it because there has been no hard evidence posted that this is required. As a semi-libertarian, I oppose all emotion based law and Nanny Statism, censorship and all manner of bureacracy and red tape. I oppose this because I don't want government telling people how to live unless at very least such nanny statism will do some good.

If there is evidence to support a claim that driving at .50-.80 is significantly increases fatalities than driving at lower ranges, then lower the limit. However, if as many of us suspect there is not, and the real danger is caused by people driving way over .80, then I oppose lowering the limits.
If there's not enough information, then this must be corrected before changes are discussed.

It's very simple.

vinylrules

optocynic wrote: »

Well, I can safely say, I am not anti-alcohol... I am anti drink-driving!
I am also anti-speeding... another a55hole passtime in this country!!!

Ok, so we agree on speeding - which remember is the biggest cause of deaths. I wonder when that Donegal group (Public Against Road Carnage) will start their campaign to reduce speed-limits. As a Dublin suburbanite where limits are 50k or 60k I'm gobsmacked when I go down the country and see 100kph speed limits on narrow, winding roads... It would be funny if it wasn't so serious - once on a dead end lane I genuinely thought someone had graffitied an 80k sign from a 30k one until i mentioned it to someone who confirmed that this piece of dirt-track had a speed limit of 80k! Brand new signs put up by the council too!

And I also want drunks off the road like every sane person but I'm not sure I want to turn the Gardai into some kind of moral police force stopping people and questioning them about their drinking habits without having at least some cause to be suspicious in the first place. We have limits in place which are finally being enforced and appear to be working well. I'm reasonably happy about that - but don't get me started on SUVs!

Anyway, I'm out of here for the moment - enjoyed the debate - have a good day all!

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

dont know why you are arguing with people then. But usually in a debate on limits of alcohol I would care what BAC people are at as does the legisalators?

What BAC people are at is academic once someone is killed..

Do you think a family would care that their mother was killed by someone sozzled.. or someone tipsy?... would it make any difference to them to know how inibriated the a55hole behind the wheel was? All that really matters is that the driver valued his pint over the life of the victim... his victim!

Villain

Diogenes wrote: »

Well that might be okayish with you. But the European Transit Safety Authority and the statistics don't agree with you.



We've seen a significant drop since legislation changed.

Are those stats for deaths caused by drivers over the alcohol level, if not those stats are useless in this debate?