Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Drink Driving Limits

Options
1…34689…14

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #153
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    Diogenes wrote: »
    Yes because what this debate is the merits of Hobbes vs Tarski.

    What does Eddie Hobbes have to do with it?


  • Options
    #154
    ninty9er
    Registered Users Posts: 9,366 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #155
    jetfiremuck
    Registered Users Posts: 3,467 ✭✭✭jetfiremuck


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


  • Options
    #156
    ART6
    Registered Users Posts: 2,632 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


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


  • Options
    #158
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭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"


  • Options
    #159
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,946 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #160
    vinylrules
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #161
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭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!...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #163
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭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!..


  • Options
    #164
    vinylrules
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭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)


  • Options
    #165
    Diogenes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,701 ✭✭✭Diogenes


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    What does Eddie Hobbes have to do with it?


    I was actually referring to this Hobbes.

    hobbes.jpg
    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.


  • Options
    #166
    KC JONES
    Closed Accounts Posts: 243 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #167
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,848 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #168
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #169
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #170
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭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??


  • Options
    #171
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,848 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭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!!!


  • Options
    #173
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,848 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #174
    dodgyme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #175
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭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..??


  • Options
    #176
    dodgyme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #177
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭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...


  • Options
    #178
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #179
    dodgyme
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,581 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #180
    vinylrules
    Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭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."


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    optocynic
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭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?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement