Drink Driving Limit Lowered..

Benny Cake

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0624/road.html

Alanstrainor

Usually people give an opinion along with the news article to get things going...

I'm all for it tbh. I can't see anything bad coming from it.

Danbo!

Drivers caught over the limit would receive three penalty points and a €200 fine, if they do not challenge the conviction in court, but they would not receive a driving ban.

I assume that means caught over the new Learner limit but below the 50mg? Or above the new 50mg and below the old 80mg?

Mitch Connor

interesting that being caught between 50 and 80 would result in penalty points as opposed to a ban.

Can't say I am too bothered to be honest. Never drive if I have had even one drink close to it, so it shouldn't cause me any problems. Apart from if they increase the number of breth checks... I always have trouble breathing out for long enough!

Cookie_Monster

Good move in reality but I wonder what the true impact on "rural society" will be.

The 50-80 band is a good idea, gives people a chance if they are a litlle over.

It hasn't been brought in yet BTW, Seanead (sp) needs to approve.

Mitch Connor

Stee wrote: »

I assume that means caught over the new Learner limit but below the 50mg? Or above the new 50mg and below the old 80mg?

on newstalk this morning they said it was for being caught between 50 and 80

Davidth88

20mg for learners ..... that's very low indeed . If you have a few ( and I mean a few maybe 5-6 ) pints I imagine you would have that level the next morning .

What about the person sitting next to the learner ( assuming there is one )


I am on reflection for this .

MagicSean

Davidth88 wrote: »

20mg for learners ..... that's very low indeed . If you have a few ( and I mean a few maybe 5-6 ) pints I imagine you would have that level the next morning .

What about the person sitting next to the learner ( assuming there is one )


I am on reflection for this .

They are bound by the limit for full licenced drivers.

Benny Cake

What confuses me is this....

If they believe that having a level of between 50-80mg impairs driving and can lead to death on the roads why is the penalty only a 200Euro fine & 3 penalty points???

My point is, they are acknowledging the fact that a blood alcohol of 50mg does NOT seriously impair driving so why bother bringing down the limit at all???

My worry is that this this is a softly softly approach, bring in this new lower limit & in 2 years or so they will get rid of the 80mg limit altogether and hey presto anyone caught over 50mg will be off the road.....

D_Red_Army

D_Red_Army wrote: »

My worry is that this this is a softly softly approach, bring in this new lower limit & in 2 years or so they will get rid of the 80mg limit altogether and hey presto anyone caught over 50mg will be off the road.....

Why are you worried that anyone with over 50mg will be off the road?

The whole thing sounds fine to me

Zubeneschamali

This is no harm, but will do no good either. There isn't enough enforcement to keep people under the existing limit with the threat of a ban, so a lower limit with a threat of points will have no effect at all.

In this 2008 RSA report , the key data is on page 24 "Blood Alcohol levels in killed drivers":

Zero: 26%
1-19: 2%
20-49: 3%
50-80: 3%
81-159: 9%
160-239: 12%
240+: 9%

(Not recorded : 35%)

This change targets the 6% who were 20-80, and does nothing about the 21% who are more than double the current limit.

munchkin_utd

Davidth88 wrote: »

20mg for learners ..... that's very low indeed . If you have a few ( and I mean a few maybe 5-6 ) pints I imagine you would have that level the next morning .

As mentioned on newstalk this morning, 50mg is the norm across europe so Ireland only coming into line with that.

re learners, its not a bad thing that its an ultra low limit, but good that its not zero. The morning after a few quiet ones you might have some traceable residue but maybe not be as low as 0.0000000 blood level

BTW: if I understand it correctly, this legislation was not simply a drink driving bill, it was aparantly a complete rewrite of the entire road traffic legislation as the legislation till now is confused to such an extent that some laywer has written a 1200 page book to try and make sense of it all (which suggests there was lots of loopholes there till now if only you could find them!!!).
Is there any other info on what exactly was passed?
(maybe start a new thread as this could be the most important event for motorists in Ireland since the driving licence was introduced)

danbohan

bluewolf wrote: »

Why are you worried that anyone with over 50mg will be off the road?

The whole thing sounds fine to me

me too
where it may be a problem is next day , nobody should drive after drinking , even one or two drinks , but how long after drinking will you show 50 mg or 30mg or whatever they decide next

drunkmonkey

bluewolf wrote: »

Why are you worried that anyone with over 50mg will be off the road?

The whole thing sounds fine to me

According to this calculator http://www.alcodigital.ie/info/bloodalcohol%20content%20calculator.htm I can have 3 pints in an hour and be under 50mg, 4 pints will drive me up to about 72mg and 5 pints will put me over the limit.

The whole things sounds fine to me to, think I won't be doing that diet now, skinny people are screwed.

Danbo!

danbohan wrote: »

me too
where it may be a problem is next day , nobody should drive after drinking , even one or two drinks , but how long after drinking will you show 50 mg or 30mg or whatever they decide next

There is a lot of conflicting information out there regarding how long it takes for drink to leave your system, but it differs from person to person.

The most common I heard is one hour per unit, but then again for a underweight/overweight person this can be very different, and not always consistent as it depends on food you've eaten, sleep etc.

Best thing to do is ask yourself the next day if you feel up to driving. I know people that would drink heavily til 4 or 5 am and get up and drive at 9 and think its grand because they have slept. Im probably too over-cautious myself, but ill take it easy if I have to drive the next day. I just hate the attitude of "I hope I dont get caught" instead of "I hope I dont mill down some poor kid"

danbohan

danbohan wrote: »

me too
where it may be a problem is next day , nobody should drive after drinking , even one or two drinks , but how long after drinking will you show 50 mg or 30mg or whatever they decide next

If you're drinking enough to be a problem the next day either you're still drunk or hungover??

Danbo!

drunkmonkey wrote: »

According to this calculator http://www.alcodigital.ie/info/bloodalcohol%20content%20calculator.htm I can have 3 pints in an hour and be under 50mg, 4 pints will drive me up to about 72mg and 5 pints will put me over the limit.

The whole things sounds fine to me to, think I won't be doing that diet now, skinny people are screwed.

According to that I could have 4 pints in 1 hour and be just below the limit. There is no way I would be up to driving after sinking 4 pints!

seamus

danbohan wrote: »

me too
where it may be a problem is next day , nobody should drive after drinking , even one or two drinks , but how long after drinking will you show 50 mg or 30mg or whatever they decide next

If you have one or two drinks and get 8 hours' sleep, you will not show any alcohol in your system when you wake up. If you do, there's something wrong with your liver/kidneys.

If you have 10 pints, drinking 10pm till 3am and then go to bed and get up at 8am and go for a drive, you will still be well over the 50mg limit and probably the 80mg limit. This is the kind of thing that the new limit will clamp down on.

D_Red_Army wrote: »

If they believe that having a level of between 50-80mg impairs driving and can lead to death on the roads why is the penalty only a 200Euro fine & 3 penalty points???

Three reasons:

1. European standards - most of the OECD currently have a 50mg limit
2. Reflecting reality - studies have shown that under 50mg, there's little or no impact on someone's driving ability. Effects are noticeable over 50mg, but don't become extremely impairing until you start going over 80mg.
3. To discourage - they want an attitude that if you're driving to the pub, just don't drink, or that if you want a drink, have a *single* drink and then give yourself an hour or two before getting in the car.

The last point is important because it's something we're not very good at. The wailing about BAC limits from the publicans goes to show that we don't understand how to go to the pub and not drink, and as a culture we enjoy having 3 or 4 pints and a chat, not a single pint.

cadaliac

munchkin_utd wrote: »

As mentioned on newstalk this morning, 50mg is the norm across europe so Ireland only coming into line with that.


You see this is where I disagree. Just because it is 50mg in Europe, it has to be 50mg here. Why is that?
They all kept banging on about "bringing it in line with Europe" last year. More copy the rule book game again before they examine the circumstances in their own country.
While I agree with the 50 to 80mg proposal, I do think that 20mg is too low (even for learners) - the rules of the road should be the same for everyone. At 18 years of age you are entitled to vote and consume alcohol.
As pointed out, are they saying that you are ok to drive with 50mg in your blood. If so, why the lesser limit for a learner? (I understand the logic but in reality, is this going to make a difference?)
Anyway, I would be delighted if we were in line with European public transport. That is why this "in line with Europe " statement p1sses me off.

ANXIOUS

This sounds to me that it is another Noel Dempsey brain wave, making changes for the sake of making changes. Their is absolutly no scientific evidence that I have seen to suggest that this will help lower deaths on the road.

IMO when people that decide to drink drive, decide to drink drive they make that decision and go whole hog. They won't stop and think about this decrease, the people who will are the ones who go out for dinner and have to decide between one or two glasses of wine with dinner.

I would also suggest that, driving while texting especially is 100% more dangerous than having a BAL of 80mg. The reason for this is because youreyes are off the road and your thinking of what you are writing. However the punishments are not the same, because IMO it's the Joe duffy brigade oh no drink car no let's change it.

As a country we have virtually eradicated our drinking driving culture, however this is a step to far. It'll be funny at the border if they put up signs to let people know.

munchkin_utd

cadaliac wrote: »

munchkin_utd wrote: »

As mentioned on newstalk this morning, 50mg is the norm across europe so Ireland only coming into line with that.

You see this is where I disagree. Just because it is 50mg in Europe, it has to be 50mg here. Why is that?

It was also mentioned on the news by yer man from the AA that 50mg is a sensible limit, which is why everyone in Europe aside from Ireland/ Uk is running with it. Its not a copycat law for the sake of it.

The AA rep mentioned that from research into accidents and measured levels of alcohol:
Up to 50mg the alcohol does not increase the chance of an accident by much.
From 50 to 80 the chances of an accident rise very rapidly the more alcohol is taken.
Above 80 mg theres a much much higher chance of an accident.

so with that in mind, 50mg seems to be really the limit where you could say you could drive safely and above that youre heading into reckless territory.

200motels

bluewolf wrote: »

Why are you worried that anyone with over 50mg will be off the road?

The whole thing sounds fine to me

I agree it's a good thing, the only people who'll be worried will be the people who do drink and drive.

Tigger

Stee wrote: »

According to that I could have 4 pints in 1 hour and be just below the limit. There is no way I would be up to driving after sinking 4 pints!

Those are halfs not pints , unless you weigh 200 kg

mullingar

For those who are using that calculator,

1 Pint = 2 Drinks!!

The calculation assumes that one drink equals approx. 1 shot of 40% spirit, 125ml of 11% wine, or 1/2 pint 4.5% beer.

It sounds about right, 2 pints in 4 hours was roumered to be over the limit

voxpop

Do non-alcoholic beers have much impact - i.e. if you drank 3 or 4 non-alcoholic eirdingers - does that have much effect on the alcohol levels in your blood levels - I think its 0.4% or something

opinion guy

I was under the impression that if you had a limit as low as 20mg you would be havin lots of false positives on the test since stuff like mouthwash etc can give you levels this high ???? Or was that just country publican propaganda.

seamus

opinion guy wrote: »

I was under the impression that if you had a limit as low as 20mg you would be havin lots of false positives on the test since stuff like mouthwash etc can give you levels this high ???? Or was that just country publican propaganda.

Propaganda. A test immediately after having used mouthwash may cause a false positive. But that's only sufficent to arrest you. You will be charged/convicted based on a positive sample taken in the Garda station after a wait of 30 minutes (I think).

Tests have shown that all traces of the alcohol in mouthwash dissipate within about ten minutes. If you do happen to get stopped and show a positive, any Garda will be more than happy to wait 15/20 minutes at the roadside to test you again, rather than waste everyone's time arresting you and filling out paperwork.

So in order for mouthwash to get you arrested you have to be tested immediately after having used mouthwash and be tested by the most unreasonable Garda in the country.

No-one has ever been convicted of drink-driving because of mouthwash. Unless they're drinking it.

Its bad enough as it is for people who have to drive to work in the morning after a night out but this is going to make it impossible. The limit is just fine as it is its just a waste of time and money lowering it. The limit is already very low as it is.

seamus

voxpop wrote: »

Do non-alcoholic beers have much impact - i.e. if you drank 3 or 4 non-alcoholic eirdingers - does that have much effect on the alcohol levels in your blood levels - I think its 0.4% or something

Minimal. You'd need to drink roughly 10 pints of non-alcoholic beer to have the same effect as a pint of normal beer.

By the time you got to your tenth non-alcoholic beer, you'll have already processed the alcohol from the first 8.

vinylrules

Australia is the only English speaking country with the 50mg limit. This is the advice they give to motorists for staying below the limit. One pint or one glass of wine (as stated on RTE news this morning) will not put anyone over the limit. In fact having a glass of wine or two with a meal over, say two and a half hours should leave you virtually clear of alcohol - in other words your system will absorb it during that time. (The scare-mongering on this matter is something to behold!)

For Men:
No more than two standard drinks in the first hour and one standard drink each hour after that. *

For Women:
No more than one standard drink each hour. *
* Although this is a conservative estimate designed to minimise the risk of exceeding the legal limit, some people (especially women) may need to take even further precautions when pacing their drinks.

http://www.05licenceback.com.au/guide.htm

Shane732

On a side topic - Does anyone use a Breathalsyer themselves the morning after?

Like for example on a night out I could have 4-5 pints followed by maybe 1-2 vodkas and then onto the shots, say 4 shots.....

I'd never dream of getting anywhere near a car after a night out but I'm wondering at what point is it ok for me to drive the day after....

Do the Breathalsyer you can buy give an accurate representation in comparison to the Gardai testers?

zubair

I can happily say that this change won't affect me! I'm not a teetotaler, I just use common sense.

If you've got a problem with this law you should have your license taken from you!

jimmycrackcorm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Zero: 26%
1-19: 2%
20-49: 3%
50-80: 3%
81-159: 9%
160-239: 12%
240+: 9%

(Not recorded : 35%)

This change targets the 6% who were 20-80, and does nothing about the 21% who are more than double the current limit.

Sounds like we need to clamp down on non-drinkers as they are statistically the major killers out there.

The only objection I have to this new law is that I have no way of telling whether or not I'm over the limit or not.

Cookie_Monster

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The only objection I have to this new law is that I have no way of telling whether or not I'm over the limit or not.

1 pint = on limit, anything else = over.
a bit simple but useful none the less.

ardmacha

It'll be funny at the border if they put up signs to let people know.

Why would they do that? In any case there will only be a few months when limits on either side of the border are different.

Australia is the only English speaking country with the 50mg limit.

Not counting Canada, of course.

Padraig Mor

More bull**** politics. Enforcing the current limit (which is mostly not enforced) would save a lot more lives. Wouldn't get headlines though.....

no1beemerfan

Reading some of the comments shows me people are too fond of their drink or can't go out/enjoy themselves without drink being involved. If you know you are driving the next morning why drink the night before? Surely a night off the drink now and again isn't going to do any harm?

I'm all for these new regs.....just wish the current (and the new) ones would be enforced though!

Cookie_Monster

Padraig Mor wrote: »

More bull**** politics. Enforcing the current limit (which is mostly not enforced) would save a lot more lives. Wouldn't get headlines though.....

in fairness the number of checkpoints and people caught has jumped hugely in the last couple of years. iirc something like 500 people a month are caught

and it is just bringing it in line with EU norm

opinion guy

ardmacha wrote: »

Not counting Canada, of course.

Cough......Quebec......cough cough

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The only objection I have to this new law is that I have no way of telling whether or not I'm over the limit or not.

Do you really need to be told after having drinks whether you're technically over the limit or not?
How about don't have any drinks before driving?

Padraig Mor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

in fairness the number of checkpoints and people caught has jumped hugely in the last couple of years. iirc something like 500 people a month are caught

and it is just bringing it in line with EU norm

Maybe so but it only scratching the surface. Having "people" in the sticks, I can tell you that the majority of people driving home from rural pubs are well over the limit and won't be caught. The checkpoints need to be in these locations at 1 am on a Sunday morning catching people driving while plastered, not in the middle of the city at 9 am catching people barely over the limit.

You only have to look to Donegal's coroner who has publicly stated that the people who end up on his slab are not 50 - 80 mg, but 200+.

vinylrules

Interesting analysis here of the "attributable risk" at various blood alcohol limits if you could be bothered reading it. The interesting point for me is that drivers up to 40mgs are less likely to have accidents than those at zero. This has been found in several studies and while it is almost counter-intuitive it proves to me that drivers with low levels of alcohol are probably more likely to be more careful than others drivers.

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Misc/driving/s9p2.htm


For drivers with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) up to 0.04%, the alcohol-related accident risk is nearly identical to or even less than that for sober drivers

If no one with a BAC greater than 0.08% drove, a reduction of 96% would result. Thus, if the legal limit for DUI in Germany (0.08%) was an effective deterrant against driving with a higher BAC, this would mean that nearly everything that could be done to prevent alcohol-related accidents would have been accomplished. Thus, countermeasures directed at those persons driving at BACs higher than 0.08% can be expected to be most effective in reducing the number of accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol. In contrast, measures directed at drivers with BACs less than 0.08% cannot be very effective. At most, 4% of all accidents attributable to the effects of alcohol may be prevented.

cadaliac

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

in fairness the number of checkpoints and people caught has jumped hugely in the last couple of years. iirc something like 500 people a month are caught

and it is just bringing it in line with EU norm

:mad:

danbohan

bluewolf wrote: »

If you're drinking enough to be a problem the next day either you're still drunk or hungover??

and your medical basis for that is ?, from what i know that may not be true , but as earlier poster says it varys by individual

GTE

Davidth88 wrote: »

20mg for learners ..... that's very low indeed . If you have a few ( and I mean a few maybe 5-6 ) pints I imagine you would have that level the next morning.

I was amazed to hear that learners could have a drop of alcohol in their system! I found that out after I passed my test

Good point about the next morning though. Still, amazed learners have a limit that isnt 0.

freighter

I was suprised that hgv drivers like my self got a lower limit than the normal joe soap. I think it should be zero myself. I never ever drink the day/night before i drive so it wont bother me. I think 50 is still high though considering our eu buddies are zero in a lot of countries.

Bandara

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Good move in reality but I wonder what the true impact on "rural society" will be.

The 50-80 band is a good idea, gives people a chance if they are a litlle over.

It hasn't been brought in yet BTW, Seanead (sp) needs to approve.

The only impact on rural society that matters is that less people will die at the hands of a drunk driver because of this law.

The old "Sure I'll just have the 2 or 3 pints and I'll be grand" merchants will be weeded out

freighter

Hammertime wrote: »

The only impact on rural society that matters is that less people will die at the hands of a drunk driver because of this law.

The old "Sure I'll just have the 2 or 3 pints and I'll be grand" merchants will be weeded out

I agree and disagree. The fellas you refer to will drink and drive no matter if the limit was zero or 500. I agree that it should reduce deaths though.

Tragedy

I'm opposed to this as I feel it'll catch more morning after people for whom the alcohol in their system wont be affecting their judgement/reaction times anyway.

I also firmly believe that all statistics on accidents related to alcohol and attributing the increase in BAC to an increase in accidents is creating something out of nothing.

I'm trying to find a link, but there was a Californian(I think!) woman who was admitted to hospital for being so far over the drink drive limit, the next day she was still massively over the limit but police and doctors performed a number of tests on her and found none of her senses/reactions were impaired at all.

Vertakill

I wouldn't mind if the limit was 0mg for all drivers. In my opinion, there's absolutely no point in having 1 or 2 pints if you're planning on driving. You could just as easily drink a non-alcoholic drink in that space of time instead.
You'd have 2 pints finished in probably less than 40 minutes, so why not just drink some lucozade instead for that period of time?

The 2 or 3 pints are going to have no real noticable effect on you, socially... but could have huge effects on you if you're breathalysed or if you're involved in an accident.
The reward (of negligible effects of alcohol whilst in a pub environment) compared to the risks involved are pointless in my opinion.

If you're planning on going to the pub with your car, make the decision before any alcohol has touched your lips that you're either going to leave the car there or you're not going to go over the limit (or better yet, don't drink alcohol at all).
Pointless making this decision after you've drank any alcohol because we all know the mad sh1t we come up with after a pint or two.

Tragedy wrote: »

I'm opposed to this as I feel it'll catch more morning after people for whom the alcohol in their system wont be affecting their judgement/reaction times anyway.

That's bs afaik. If your BAC is too high, regardless of how 'drunk' you feel, you're experiencing the effects.

I know from experience that if I've had 6 or 7 pints and gone to bed at 2am, then woke up and was driving the car by 8 or 9am, I'm definitely, noticeably more dodgy in the car.

I might feel fine and feel no after effects but I'm definitely more complacent and do things I'd normally never do. So that's why after that kind of experience, I wouldn't do it again.

Tragedy

Vertakill wrote: »

That's bs afaik. If your BAC is too high, regardless of how 'drunk' you feel, you're experiencing the effects.

I know from experience that if I've had 6 or 7 pints and gone to bed at 2am, then woke up and was driving the car by 8 or 9am, I'm definitely, noticeably more dodgy in the car.

I might feel fine and feel no after effects but I'm definitely more complacent and do things I'd normally never do. So that's why after that kind of experience, I wouldn't do it again.

It's BS? 6 or 7 pints will leave you with no BAC 7 hours after you finish, yet you feel more dodgy in the car?

I call shenanigans.

There's a well known psychological effect to alcohol and it's effects on people, hence why people can get 'drunk' on non-alcoholic beer.