Drink Driving Limits

squonk

I personally think that the current 80mg limit is adequate. I have to say that I don't drive myself so the existence of a limit of any type won't have a bearing on me.

I live in Dublin but am from a rural area and because I don't drive I do have an insight into what life is like for someone in Dublin and rural Ireland who wants a drink.

There is no excuse for drink driving in Dublin. Taxis are plentiful as is public transport. I never have a problem getting out and about and back home again in the capital. Back at home it's different. I live a mile from my local pub. While taxi services have improved over the years it's nowhere near as practical to use them as in Dublin, especially if it's a weekend night and the few that are available are prioritising punters from the night clubs in the larger towns nearby. You havea very long wait and you'd be faster walking home.

The problem with walking is that roads in the countryside are not lit and can be very dark. It will also, more often than not, be pouring off the heavens. I've often arrived home soaked to the skin. There is also the danger of the boy racer brigade and also of being attacked in these circumstances.

I know many neighbours who bring their cars for these reasons. Some stay within the limit but I won't say all do. The common factor though is that they use back roads and, as they're locals, they know the roads very well. They also tend to stay well within the speed limit.

Now, the people advocating 0mg or 50mg can say what they like. I'm trying to paint a picture of what is really happening in rural Ireland. For most people in their 50's or older, the pub really is the only social outlet available to them if they are not part of the local GAA club. Many of the younger farmers now work in day jobs so it's very possible to go through your working day without meeting very many people. Also, the local pub, besides the church, is the focal point of the community, especially now that local shops and post offices are closing.

I do think that a rural bus scheme would be a good idea but I don't see it happening any time soon. All I see is the people of rural Ireland being put through hardship and disuaded from the limited social activity they currently enjoy by ill conceived policies.

I don't condone highly irresponsible drunk driving. I've seen enough accidents caused by such behaviour. I think the 80mg limit right now is something that works and should be more rigourously enforced.

vinylrules

Listening to Morning Ireland and Pat Kenny this morning and one thing is clear - this limit is not coming along anytime soon. Apparently the Fianna Fail meeting last night was one of the most passionate and heated that some TDs had ever witnessed. RTE's David Davin Power probably got it right when he said "there'll be more work needed on this before it gets through. "

Also, worth doing is checking out the so called "scientifc" facts that are been bandied about on this matter. The RSA figures especially those provided by Dr Declan Bedford are highly suspect. Bedford is a staunch advocate of tough measures against alcohol - he opposed cafe bars for example and was on the Governemt Alcohol Advisory group which recommended Off licences be closed at 10pm. Meanwhile, RSA head Noel Brett is a former member of the Strategic Task Force on Alcohol (as was Bedford). Conflict of interest, anyone? (or to put it another way - you wouldn't ask a member of The Green Party to check out the safety of incinerators - would you?)

For example, other countries who lowered their limit often have different circumstances to ours. (Eg many countries who introduced the lower limit also increased enforcement and introduced Random Testing at the same time, which had an effect (we've had RBT since July '06 so there's nothing more to be gained there - espically with the reductions in Garda overtime.)

I heard Austria - who lowered their limits a few years ago, being mentioned this morning. Checked it out and - lo and behold - discover that drink driving is "soaring". Same with Australia, who are the only English speaking country with the 50mg limit - see inks below:
http://www.austriantimes.at/news/General%20News/2009-07-09/14575/Drink-driving_fatalities_soar

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/booze-bust-rate-soars/story-e6frf7jo-1225700392851

Liam Byrne

vinylrules wrote: »

Apparently the Fianna Fail meeting last night was one of the most passionate and heated that some TDs had ever witnessed. RTE's David Davin Power probably got it right when he said "there'll be more work needed on this before it gets through. "

And they do this for a non-issue on a Minister's solo run!!! Just for a second, imaging that the above related to NAMA instead of a solo-run that no-one asked for.....

Yes, imagine if the same passion was put into legislation and policies that people actually WANT implemented, e.g. a proper alternative to NAMA, weeding out corruption, lowering expenses, proper facilities and social services, a properly managed and sustainable economy.....

Can't help thinking that Ireland would be a decent place to live if this happened......what a pity!

And the opposition to cafe bars was a joke! While yes, it's indirectly led to loads of existing bars now serving food (many of them good and reasonable food, too), and the recession has made the crowded and uncomfortable "super-pubs" more bearable, that opposition was purely to safeguard existing publicans and was - IMHO - a backward step in the whole concept of sensible, social drinking.

the groutch

this is one that Noel Dempsey will have to be very careful about, last thing FF need with the government's slender majority is a backbench revolt

Villain

LOL The backbencers have won out, using the cop out of having to wait for the North to lower theres, lol

optocynic

I'm sorry to be the blunt one, but having stood beside my friend when we were 18 and he was hit by a drunk driver and killed in front of his friends, I have a clear picture of this issue.

Lowering the limit to 50 is not a political issue, it is a simple moral one.
If you are drinking, don't drive!
If you feel you have to go to the pub for your life to be complete, get a cab... or simply drink sparkling water...
I don't care if you feel ok to drive.. experts (doctors) say you are not!

If lowering the limit to 50 saves ONE life... isn't it worth it?

SeanW

optocynic wrote: »

I'm sorry to be the blunt one, but having stood beside my friend when we were 18 and he was hit by a drunk driver and killed in front of his friends, I have a clear picture of this issue.

Lowering the limit to 50 is not a political issue, it is a simple moral one.
If you are drinking, don't drive!
If you feel you have to go to the pub for your life to be complete, get a cab... or simply drink sparkling water...
I don't care if you feel ok to drive.. experts (doctors) say you are not!

If lowering the limit to 50 saves ONE life... isn't it worth it?

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.

vinylrules

Yep. The issue has been parked! Kicked to touch!

When the post-mortem on this sorry debacle is conducted I think the Government and authorities will realise that they are the victims of their own hype (e.g. "Just one drink puts you over the limit" (it doesn't). "Lowering the limits has widespread suppport" (it clearly doesn't)..."it will save lives" (maybe, maybe not - the evidence is not wholly convincing)

What's needed now is much more research, with specific emphasies on the Irish way of life, taking into account the wider impacts and "law-of unintended-consequences" that comes into play through these laws.
For example, did anyone factor in the possible effect on say, Doctors, Midwives, Vets, Voluntary Firefighters, Lifeboatmen etc., all of whom can be called out suddenly, without warning? Even if they had just a small amount of alcohol in their system, they might not want to respond, just in case they lose their licence etc. What about the effects on The Gardai and the courts who will be tied up prosecuting relatively minor offences?

There is also evidence from other countries that lowering the limits has the effect of softening public attitudes towards drink-driving. In other words, at low levels, it's not seen as such a serious offence. (This has happened in Sweden.)

IMO there has been a touch of Reefer Madness to this whole affair. (Reefer Madness was a public information film shown in the US in the 1930s, warning kids against the dangers of smoking dope. It was so over- the-top and unbelievable that it became a comedy classic on the college circuit.)

I'm thinking here of the RSA ad which shows a guy looking at a girl, sipping on a pint, turning green and causing all kinds of mayhem on the roads Then there's the other ad which shows a guy coming from a GAA club - hitting the kerb at quite a reasonable speed and flipping 40ft through the air and landing in a back garden on a child - has such an accident ever happened?

Anyway, back to the drawing board!

Diogenes

After Lisbon, NAMA, the Educatio Cuts, John O Donghue's expense accounts, it beggars belief that drink driving is what could bring down this government.

Good god this is the issue that has 25 TDs up in arms this!

If we're looking to cut the number of TDs down by 20 can we drop up the list from this shower?

Vinyl Rules wrote:

For example, did anyone factor in the possible effect on say, Doctors, Midwives, Vets, Voluntary Firefighters, Lifeboatmen etc., all of whom can be called out suddenly, without warning?

The majority of these profession spend part of their time off "on call". On most rest days they will never be called out, however when they are on call they are expected to remain sober, and near their base of operations.

Villain

Diogenes wrote: »

After Lisbon, NAMA, the Educatio Cuts, John O Donghue's expense accounts, it beggars belief that drink driving is what could bring down this government.

Good god this is the issue that has 25 TDs up in arms this!

If we're looking to cut the number of TDs down by 20 can we drop up the list from this shower?



The majority of these profession spend part of their time off "on call". On most rest days they will never be called out, however when they are on call they are expected to remain sober, and near their base of operations.

Diogenes it won't bring down the Government down, they have kicked into touch using the North as an excuse

vinylrules

I would strongly suspect that there are many more than just the 22 TDs involved who are up in arms about this. These are just the ones who went public - - there are probably many more who've chosen to remain silent. According to an RTE report there were several Ministers at the Parliamentary Party meeting last night but none of them spoke up in support of Dempsey. Also, presumably, there are opposition TDs who would be in the same boat.

This reminds me of the whole immigration debate about ten years ago. It was very Un-PC to have a strong opinion - but once certain problems began to emerge (eg pregnant mothers flying in to have their babies and flying out again) more and more people felt able to speak out...I know people who would have been broadly in favour of the lower limits - but having looked at all of the facts are now less certain that this is the way to go. Didn't Gay Byrne say he was more in favour of better enforcement than lower limits?

Diogenes

Villain wrote: »

Diogenes it won't bring down the Government down, they have kicked into touch using the North as an excuse

I know, I saw the news update after I posted it, it still beggars believe that after the grieve over NAMA, and Lisbon, that there was a 25TD back bench revolt over this piddly little thing.

squonk

Diogenes wrote: »

I know, I saw the news update after I posted it, it still beggars believe that after the grieve over NAMA, and Lisbon, that there was a 25TD back bench revolt over this piddly little thing.

It just shows that most of them there are thinking about their constituetns and not the country. Personally I'm happy it's kicked to touch but the sad part is that the back bench revolt only happend because it's what the constituents would want to see and it'd be the very thing flung back on the TD's on the door step at the next election. Sums up Irish Politics i think.

T runner

optocynic wrote: »

I'm sorry to be the blunt one, but having stood beside my friend when we were 18 and he was hit by a drunk driver and killed in front of his friends, I have a clear picture of this issue.

Lowering the limit to 50 is not a political issue, it is a simple moral one.
If you are drinking, don't drive!
If you feel you have to go to the pub for your life to be complete, get a cab... or simply drink sparkling water...
I don't care if you feel ok to drive.. experts (doctors) say you are not!

If lowering the limit to 50 saves ONE life... isn't it worth it?

Have to agree with you completely and sorry about your friend.
Sacrificing one pint for a mineral or taking a cab is a small price to pay for saving a life.

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?

A bit of respect might be in order please. Its OK to be emotional about an issue if you have lost a friend to it. (100 times more hyperbole in your speech though)

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

Most drunk drivers? Depends what you mean by drunk. According to all available international research alcohol starts affecting you from a few minutes after the first amount is taken. Anything above 50 puts you in the at-risk category.

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.

The poster is not asking anyone to stay in bed. The poster is recommending not drinking and driving which is reasonable.

Any right thinking person must reject the Nanny State completely, totally and without reservation.

I reject the Nanny state. If anyone runs someone over because of drinking even one pint they shouldnt be nannied: they should be ****ed in jail without delay.

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.

The balance is the action of causing an accident because of impaired reaction, tunnel vision and speeding due to a sense of false "well-being" gets balanced with Jail time.

Pat Kenny and a FF TD put forth the proposition that there may be increased suicides in rural areas in males due to the new legislation. Its ironic that excess alcohol consumption (as a crutch) almost always plays a major role in West of Ireland suicides.

ART6

I don't drink and drive. I don't go to the pub, mainly because it's in the next village two miles away and it closed recently due (so the landlord said) to the loss of business from the smoking ban and the drink driving laws, and the next nearest pub is way away and filled with strangers. So instead I will have a few local friends and/or family round when we can all have a drink and a smoke to our hearts content.

However, the problem I have with this proposed legislation is, as always, that it penalises the majority for the sins of the few. It smacks of the simplistic approach taken by politicians who are either too thick to think out a realstic solution, or who are too obsessed with their own image to care as long as it gets their names in the papers on on TV. And when they start to spout statistics I am reminded that statistics are the refuge of the scoundrel. I believe firmly that the current crop of politicians are all blatant liars and self seekers, and so I simply do not believe that the law will have any effect at all on anything other than the licenced trade and on the minister's political image as a tough and effective legislator.

If we are going to rely on statistics, I recall reading somewhere that the cervical cancer vaccination was predicted to save 100 lives a year, but that wasn't a convenient statistic for the FF ministers. Will this new law save 100 lives a year?

jetfiremuck

The onlly other way around this is to regulate the alchocol content in the drink ...then you could have 4 pints and really have had just 2

nellumr

ART6 wrote: »

I don't drink and drive. I don't go to the pub, mainly because it's in the next village two miles away and it closed recently due (so the landlord said) to the loss of business from the smoking ban and the drink driving laws, and the next nearest pub is way away and filled with strangers. So instead I will have a few local friends and/or family round when we can all have a drink and a smoke to our hearts content.

However, the problem I have with this proposed legislation is, as always, that it penalises the majority for the sins of the few. It smacks of the simplistic approach taken by politicians who are either too thick to think out a realstic solution, or who are too obsessed with their own image to care as long as it gets their names in the papers on on TV. And when they start to spout statistics I am reminded that statistics are the refuge of the scoundrel. I believe firmly that the current crop of politicians are all blatant liars and self seekers, and so I simply do not believe that the law will have any effect at all on anything other than the licenced trade and on the minister's political image as a tough and effective legislator.

If we are going to rely on statistics, I recall reading somewhere that the cervical cancer vaccination was predicted to save 100 lives a year, but that wasn't a convenient statistic for the FF ministers. Will this new law save 100 lives a year?

Insert head scratching smiley here, sorry but what has one to do with the other?

bonkey

Just as a matter of interest, lads...what's the story with insurance in drink-driving accidents?

I know that here in Switzerland, if you're over the limit and involved in an accident, then the insurance company must "charge back" a certain minimum (40% or 60%...never can remember) of any costs incurred...and can go up to 100%.

To put that in context...if you seriously injure someone, you could end up owing your insurance company hundreds of thousands to millions. Not only that, but they will take every asset (including a house and/or pension) they can to cover those costs, and if thats not enough, then every penny you earn above subsistence level will go to them until its paid off.

Personally, I find it hard to argue against this approach. You can have all the policing and whatever limits you like....but at the end of the day, I find the the thought of losing my pension, my house, and my ability to give you daughter a better life perhaps the greatest deterrent imaginable if I was ever even tempted to risk driving anywhere near the limit.

Liam Byrne

nellumr wrote: »

Insert head scratching smiley here, sorry but what has one to do with the other?

ART6 is actually spot-on.

The "we'll save 100 lives a year" wasn't enough to make FF act on the cancer vaccine, but for some reason it is enough to make them act on this ?

BTW, it's not 100 that will be saved by this; it was discussed this on The Last Word and the MAXIMUM potential benefit is 18.

Yes, it's 18 lives - real people - and it should be considered; but the above post does show that it's just another attention-grabbing soundbite. If FF were serious about legislating to save lives, they'd have introduced the vaccine.

And sorting out the thugs that mug and maim old people - ACTUAL, CURRENT CRIMINALS - might save more than 18, too.....but that's too difficult; just like the taxes and expenses and levies and bailouts re the politicians, banks and developers, it's yet another example of hitting the average LAW ABIDING Joe Soap instead of making real decisions.

Liam Byrne

bonkey wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, lads...what's the story with insurance in drink-driving accidents?

I know that here in Switzerland, if you're over the limit and involved in an accident, then the insurance company must "charge back" a certain minimum (40% or 60%...never can remember) of any costs incurred...and can go up to 100%.

To put that in context...if you seriously injure someone, you could end up owing your insurance company hundreds of thousands to millions. Not only that, but they will take every asset (including a house and/or pension) they can to cover those costs, and if thats not enough, then every penny you earn above subsistence level will go to them until its paid off.

Personally, I find it hard to argue against this approach. You can have all the policing and whatever limits you like....but at the end of the day, I find the the thought of losing my pension, my house, and my ability to give you daughter a better life perhaps the greatest deterrent imaginable if I was ever even tempted to risk driving anywhere near the limit.

+1 I've often wondered why insurance companies have to pay out if it's found that someone crashed while breaking the law; e.g. a crash at 90mph....their legal contract to you shouldn't be binding if you were acting illegally.

Of course, considering that in this country someone breaking into your house can sue you, I'm not surprised. :rolleyes:

T runner

Liam Byrne wrote: »

ART6 is actually spot-on.


Yes, it's 18 lives - real people - and it should be considered; .......

..................it's yet another example of hitting the average LAW ABIDING Joe Soap instead of making real decisions.

A couple of points:

Lets be clear, If the legal limit becomes 50 then the average Joe Soap will not be LAW ABIDING but acting in a CRIMINAL MANNER if he/she drives the car with an alcohol concentration above 50.

You seem to recognise that legislation saving 18 lives should be considered yet you are defending the average LAW ABIDING Joe soap drinking between 50-80 who hypothetically would be the one doing the killing of this particular 18. How can you defend someone who causes the death of another because they wanted to drive on 2 pints instead of one?

Mad Finn

ART6 wrote: »

I don't drink and drive. I don't go to the pub,..... So instead I will have a few local friends and/or family round when we can all have a drink and a smoke to our hearts content.

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

ninty9er

vinylrules wrote: »

For example, did anyone factor in the possible effect on say, Doctors, Midwives, Vets, Voluntary Firefighters, Lifeboatmen etc., all of whom can be called out suddenly, without warning? Even if they had just a small amount of alcohol in their system, they might not want to respond, just in case they lose their licence etc. What about the effects on The Gardai and the courts who will be tied up prosecuting relatively minor offences?

They would be breaching their duty of care if they were to attempt to work after consuming alcohol.
Hence:

Diogenes wrote: »

The majority of these profession spend part of their time off "on call". On most rest days they will never be called out, however when they are on call they are expected to remain sober, and near their base of operations.

dodgyme

ninty9er wrote: »

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

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

Diogenes

bonkey wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, lads...what's the story with insurance in drink-driving accidents?

I know that here in Switzerland, if you're over the limit and involved in an accident, then the insurance company must "charge back" a certain minimum (40% or 60%...never can remember) of any costs incurred...and can go up to 100%.

To put that in context...if you seriously injure someone, you could end up owing your insurance company hundreds of thousands to millions. Not only that, but they will take every asset (including a house and/or pension) they can to cover those costs, and if thats not enough, then every penny you earn above subsistence level will go to them until its paid off.

Personally, I find it hard to argue against this approach. You can have all the policing and whatever limits you like....but at the end of the day, I find the the thought of losing my pension, my house, and my ability to give you daughter a better life perhaps the greatest deterrent imaginable if I was ever even tempted to risk driving anywhere near the limit.

Well let me put this way, are Swiss insurance premiums as barmy as Ireland. Seriously, you can be charged as 25 y0 premiums 6 times the car's value.

Perhaps if the Swiss system was in place, we'd see a massive reduction in premiums and drink driving, if you discovered if you killed someone you not only lose your licence, but your house, and everything you own.

I also can't imagine that the Swiss would just wave through people who were sitting their test for 2nd time, getting waved through for a full licence without passing their tests, which is what happened for years is the 80s.

Honestly the Swiss seem at times to be the most sane nation on the planet.

I can remember and this is a hand on heart on honest to god experience, being in the licence office behind the four courts and being behind a guy, who's 28 year ban was being revoked, and on the same day was applying for his hackney licence. Can me weird but I don't think someone who has over a 25 year ban on their record should be allowed be apply for a taxi licence, but he got it.

Diogenes

dodgyme wrote: »

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

Yeah, and then theres those of us who are grown up. If I drive, I don't drink, If I want to drink I don't drive. These are mutually exclusive concepts.

Now that I'm in my 30s if I go out at night I either don't drive, or If I drive I don't drink.

When I was in my twenties, and in Dublin I drank and either walked home or night bused or taxi'd. If I was out in the country we'd either share a taxi, all come around and drink and crash in one of our houses, or stayed sober.

Nermal

Benefits and costs are associated with living outside cities. It will never be possible to provide public transport to areas with low population density. If you want to drink more than you like the fresh air, move to the city.

vinylrules

The 18 lives saved if the limit was lowered is very difficult to prove.
Right now, at this moment in time, road deaths are down 46 on this time last year. This is astonishing, probably unprecedented anywhere in the world. (see Garda figures)
http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=138

Why? Who knows? The recession? Less people driving? Eastern Europeans going home? Better roads?
Actually the roads thing is a big one - is there any other country in Europe that has built so many new motorways/bypasses (i.e. safer roads) than this country in the last few years? The Dublin Port Tunnel alone has taken tens of thousands of trucks of the streets of the city making it safer for road users.

The Gardai are having far more success enforcing the current limits than anyone would have imagined, Lowering them might make things worse rather than better.

dodgyme

Diogenes wrote: »

Yeah, and then theres those of us who are grown up...

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

Diogenes wrote: »

If I drive, I don't drink, If I want to drink I don't drive. These are mutually exclusive concepts..

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.

Diogenes wrote: »

Now that I'm in my 30s if I go out at night I either don't drive, or If I drive I don't drink. .

What has your age got to do with it?

Diogenes wrote: »

When I was in my twenties, and in Dublin I drank and either walked home or night bused or taxi'd. If I was out in the country we'd either share a taxi, all come around and drink and crash in one of our houses, or stayed sober.

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.

starbelgrade

Diogenes wrote: »

Yeah, and then theres those of us who are grown up. If I drive, I don't drink, If I want to drink I don't drive. These are mutually exclusive concepts.

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