Drink Driving Limits

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?

Villain

optocynic wrote: »

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?

You do realise in many rural areas thats not possible, right?

optocynic

SeanW wrote: »

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?

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.

So... to answer your question... I need to find a dead person... killed by someone who had a BAC of 50 - 80?..
Or is 1 not enough?... do I need to show you a larger number?...
How many would satisfy you?

As for your other opinions on censorship etc... I couldn't agree more..

But with Drink driving... it is the same as gun laws.. we need it strict..
A55holes should not own guns... and as Denis Leary said.. anyone who drink drives is an a55hole-ee-o-eee-ole!!!

optocynic

Villain wrote: »

You do realise in many rural areas thats not possible, right?

Then stay at home and have a drink!

Or the pub should arrange a minibus... I have heard some do!

Rural areas also have the most dangerous, winding, narrow, dark roads too...

Villain

optocynic wrote: »

Then stay at home and have a drink!

Or the pub should arrange a minibus... I have heard some do!

Rural areas also have the most dangerous, winding, narrow, dark roads too...

You see I can agree with that I live 1.8 miles from town and I often walk home, now sadly that has it dangers too as walking those roads at night is risky with the speed of some and others way over the limit.

However asking a 70 or 80 year old to walk 5 or 10 miles to be able to meet friends and have 2 pints when he might only see 1 or 2 people all week is a different case. We have enough legislation imo, it just needs to be enforced properly, a 70 year old driving 30mph with 70mg isn't a high risk. A 18 year old driving 90mph on small rural roads where Gardai don't do speed checks is a very high risk but the Gardai might only see 1 car every 5 minutes so why would they police that when they can go to a nice big main road and catch someone every few minutes for doing 70mph?

optocynic

Villain wrote: »

You see I can agree with that I live 1.8 miles from town and I often walk home, now sadly that has it dangers too as walking those roads at night is risky with the speed of some and others way over the limit.

However asking a 70 or 80 year old to walk 5 or 10 miles to be able to meet friends and have 2 pints when he might only see 1 or 2 people all week is a different case. We have enough legislation imo, it just needs to be enforced properly, a 70 year old driving 30mph with 70mg isn't a high risk. A 18 year old driving 90mph on small rural roads where Gardai don't do speed checks is a very high risk but the Gardai might only see 1 car every 5 minutes so why would they police that when they can go to a nice big main road and catch someone every few minutes for doing 70mph?

Once again... I raise the issue... why doesn't his local arrange a mini bus to pick up him and his mates.. then they can have more than 1 drink.. have a social chat etc... and go home safe and happy..?

And to say auld fellas drive slow is utter crap... SOME are dozy and slow... some are fast, aggressive and dangerous... just like young drivers... some are reckless... some are safe!

Mad_Max

SeanW wrote: »

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.

I've missed a few pages of the debate but just seen this on a skim through. The same bureacracy tells us if we can drive at all in the first place. Do you have a problem with that level of nannying?

SeanW

optocynic wrote: »

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!

And people get killed by drivers who've had no drink at all, but that distinction too is of little comfort to a family. Can you imagine the family of a road crash victim being told "well, at least the driver had no alcohol" yes that would really make it all OK. I don't think so.

That is why I suggest that these issues should be decided by people with no or limited emotional connection.

I've missed a few pages of the debate but just seen this on a skim through. The same bureacracy tells us if we can drive at all in the first place. Do you have a problem with that level of nannying?

No problem in theory - you show that your eyesight is OK, and you understand the rules of the road, get a license to learn to drive, do your test get your full license. Good in theory. I would only have a problem where you have 60 week waits for driving tests or other systematic failures. But this is off topic.

optocynic

SeanW wrote: »

And people get killed by drivers who've had no drink at all, but that distinction too is of little comfort to a family. Can you imagine the family of a road crash victim being told "well, at least the driver had no alcohol" yes that would really make it all OK. I don't think so.

That is why I suggest that these issues should be decided by people with no or limited emotional connection.

This has nothing to do with emotional connection. Alcohol can impair a person's driving... especially reaction times..
If we are logical and honest... as I have said thrice before... If it saves just one life.. it is worth it!!

Don't be afraid of change... Would you really miss drinking and driving THAT much?

dodgyme

optocynic wrote: »

The aim of the legislation is to stop people drinking at all when they have their car! ?

No its not - the legisalation is to stop people being over a certain limit ok!

optocynic wrote: »

Just get a taxi!
Or Walk..

Why are you opposed to that?

Never said I was opposed to either.

optocynic

dodgyme wrote: »

No its not - the legisalation is to stop people being over a certain limit ok!

And that new limit will basically put a person of average mass who has had one pint of guiness over the legal limit!..

But someone who has had a slice of sherry triffle should be fine.. (unless my mother-in-law made the triffle!)...

This is a simple issue that the opponents to change are attempting to complicate.. Do you think it is ok to drink and drive?