Drink Driving Limit Lowered..

Alanstrainor

Tragedy wrote: »

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.

I always thought it took your body an hour to process one unit of alcohol, 7 pints would be 14 units+. Of course there are other elements, like how long your drinking was spread out, weight, etc etc. But 7 hours is optimistic imo

D_murph

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.

X2^.

The people that already go out and drink drive will not stop because of this.If it had worked 100% so far, then why are they still catching people so ?

Answer : because the thickos that are still doing it are most likely too drunk to care when they sit behind the wheel after a nights boozing and lowering the limit (which they would be well over anyway) will most likely not stop them.

If they had more checkpoints for the existing limit, it would be a far better job but the sheep in govt here are too busy trying to "bring everything in line with other European countries", :rolleyes: to realise this.

Unfortunately, there will be plenty of people caught the next morning (that actually got a taxi to and from the pub the night before) that are just above this new limit which is a shame .

The bit I cant understand is why the new limit only gets you 3 points and a €200 fine as opposed to the penalties that went with the .08 one . I realise that this older limit is still in force but as long as they changed it at all, why the double standard??

I suppose they got the idea from some one of these European countries while they were brown nosing them :rolleyes:.

Vertakill

Tragedy wrote: »

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.

Well, you're claiming it has no affect whatsoever on you the following morning and based on some sort of placebo effect that my driving disimproves... neither is true.
While we're on this topic... maybe it's you who is convincing yourself that the alcohol has had no affect on you while you're driving the morning after, when your driving has actually been impaired as a result.
Studies have proven my point already by the way.

Lots of times I've been in the situation where I've had a lot to drink the night before whilst leaving the car in someones house and I'd leave a good 10 or 11 hours before I'd even look at the car (based on what I'd been drinking).

Anyways, my point is that drinking 1 or 2 pints and driving compared to going on a mad one and driving the next morning without leaving enough time for the alcohol to run out of your system is a bad idea and I'd have no sympathy for anyone caught for either.

Vertakill

D_murph wrote: »

Unfortunately, there will be plenty of people caught the next morning (that actually got a taxi to and from the pub the night before) that are just above this new limit which is a shame ..

Again, HOW is this a shame?

There's no difference between someone who's caught after having had a few pints and is over the limit... as to a person who's been rat-arsed the night before and is over the limit the following morning.
They've both clearly drank too much before they got into the car.

Doesn't matter if you've gotten a taxi or an elephant to and from the pub the night before... if you've too much alcohol in your system whilst driving a car, regardless of when that alcohol was consumed, you deserve the punishment you get.

Blut2

Its fairly bizzare that people are focusing in on the "poor morning after folk" as a focus point for criticism of this new measure. If you know you have to get up at 7am, 8am, 9am or whatever on a Saturday morning and go driving then just limit yourself on the Friday night to a semi reasonable amount. You can still have fun, just stop at 4 pints. Only in Ireland can people find their own inability to keep their drinking to a responsible level the fault of the government and the Gardai.

CiniO

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

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.

This measures are worth nothing.
According to them, most dangerous are sober drivers (26%)

To know the real effect, we would need to know the amount of people who drive in certain range (f.e. 50-80), and then on top of it, amount of them who crashed.

Say, f.e. in group of 20,000 drivers who drove having 50-80, 5 crashed. At the same time, in group of 50,000 drivers having alcohol between 20-50, only 3 crashed.

That figures are of course fake, but something like this would reveal where is the real problem.

Figures shown on top, says absolutely nothing.

CiniO

munchkin_utd wrote: »

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.

That's not true.
Of course many countries have 50mg, but also many have 20mg or 0mg.

That's the figures I found somewhere on the net:

• 0.0 mg per ml– Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Hungary
• 0.2 mg per ml– Norway, Poland, Sweden
• 0.4 mg per ml- Lithuania
• 0.5 mg per ml- Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Germany (Germany is 0.3 if you’re in an accident), Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Serbia/Montenegro, Croatia, Latvia, Macedonia, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, Cyprus (North)
• 0.8 mg per ml– UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Switzerland
• 0.9 mg per mlCyprus (South)

I originally come from Poland, where limit is 20mg.
The truth is, that even after 1 pint, most people are over this limit (unless you weight 200kg).
This makes rule easy - if you drink, don't drive.
For 7 years of driving in Poland, I never drove after any alcohol.
On the other hand, this makes things a but ackward when it comes to driving in the morning.
Even after 3 - 4 pints in the evening drunk before midnight, you can never be sure if you are ok to drive next morning say at 8am.

The real question is, if that strict limits are necessary?
On the one hand, it stops reasonable people to drive even after small amount. (i'm talking about limit 20mg or less)
On the other hand, it doesn't stop those, who don't give a damn about a limit, because they drive no matter if they have 20mg, 50, 80, or 200mg.

I personally think, new regulations are very good.
50mg limit would enable almost everyone to drive say after 1 pint, which is definitly safe
Not too severe penalty (200 euro and 3 penalty points) for those who have between 50-80 is also good thing. You know then, that even if 1 pint would make you have more then 50mg, it'll cost you, but it won't ruin your life.
20mg for learners - very good. They are learning, so they have to focus. It's a lot easier to focus when sober. Please remember that learner drivers are allowed on the streets not to allow them to drive (make their life easier), but to give them a chance to learn to drive. I think many people seem to forget about the whole idea of learner drivers.
20mg for professional drivers - also wise enough. Remember that professional drivers driver vehicles which can weight more than 40 tonnes or can carry more then hundred of passengers. The same way, would anyone feel comfortable with a thought, that the pilot of the aeroplane which one's in, just had 1 pint?
Only thing is, i hope limit of 20mg for professional drivers is only while they drive professionally. I can't see any reason, why bus driver, while off from work, would be treated more strictly than anyone else.
Only thing that should still change, is even rise the penalties for those over 80mg, and increase the number of checkpoints.

Just to make people aware. If you drive after 1 pint, you are fine. Even if you exceed 50mg limit, then you pay 200 euros and get 3 points, which won't kill ya. But if you go risking more, and drive after 2 or 3 pints, and by any change get caught having say even 83mg, then you're in serious trouble. I'd say penalties for someone caught over the limit of 80, shoud be really severe.

djimi

Blut2 wrote: »

Its fairly bizzare that people are focusing in on the "poor morning after folk" as a focus point for criticism of this new measure. If you know you have to get up at 7am, 8am, 9am or whatever on a Saturday morning and go driving then just limit yourself on the Friday night to a semi reasonable amount. You can still have fun, just stop at 4 pints. Only in Ireland can people find their own inability to keep their drinking to a responsible level the fault of the government and the Gardai.

Agreed. Just because the sun has come up and its a new day doesnt make it any different from getting rat-arsed drunk at 6oc in the evening and driving home still over the limit at midnight. If youre over the limit then youre over the limit.

Personally I never understood the need to flirt with the legal limit at all. If youre driving then dont drink; its not hard. Would people really miss that one pint that much?

Hammertime

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.

I'm confused, how is this change in the law going to have any effect whatsoever on drunk driving?

Unless of course you are trying to claim some one is drunk between 50 and 80 mg which is ridiculous.

The 2 or 3 merchants are not the problem, its the people who cant remember driving home that need to be weeded out.

Vertakill

djimi wrote: »

Agreed. Just because the sun has come up and its a new day doesnt make it any different from getting rat-arsed drunk at 6oc in the evening and driving home still over the limit at midnight. If youre over the limit then youre over the limit.

Personally I never understood the need to flirt with the legal limit at all. If youre driving then dont drink; its not hard. Would people really miss that one pint that much?

That last part is exactly what I was trying to say. For the sake of having 1 or 2 pints (which have little or no effect on you inside a pub)... is it really worth it?

I've never understood why anyone would bother, as you say, flirt with the legal limit.

I could think of far nicer, non alcoholic, drinks to have in a pub in the place of having 1-2 pints if I knew I was driving shortly after.

djimi

Brayson Miniature Cough wrote: »

I'm confused, how is this change in the law going to have any effect whatsoever on drunk driving?

Unless of course you are trying to claim some one is drunk between 50 and 80 mg which is ridiculous.

The 2 or 3 merchants are not the problem, its the people who cant remember driving home that need to be weeded out.

On the contrary, its those who have 2 or 3 drinks and think that they are fine only to find out the hard way that they are not that we need to clamp down on.

Its going to have an effect because maybe some people who think that they can have 1-2 pints and still be okay to drive might rethink that mentality now that the limit is lower. If it stops even one kid getting killed by a drunk driver, if it makes even one person stop and think rather than getting behind the wheel drunk, then its very very worth it.

I only hope that they police it more rigorously. Personally I would have no problem being breathalized every night of the week if it meant taking the drunk drivers off the road.

djimi

djimi wrote: »

On the contrary, its those who have 2 or 3 drinks and think that they are fine only to find out the hard way that they are not that we need to clamp down on.

Its going to have an effect because maybe some people who think that they can have 1-2 pints and still be okay to drive might rethink that mentality now that the limit is lower. If it stops even one kid getting killed by a drunk driver, if it makes even one person stop and think rather than getting behind the wheel drunk, then its very very worth it.

I only hope that they police it more rigorously. Personally I would have no problem being breathalized every night of the week if it meant taking the drunk drivers off the road.

Please stop using the word drunk driver for someone who has had 1 or 2 pints.

Its delusional to think people who have had one or two pints are going out killing people on the roads imo.

djimi

Brayson Miniature Cough wrote: »

Please stop using the word drunk driver for someone who has had 1 or 2 pints.

Its delusional to think people who have had one or two pints are going out killing people on the roads imo.

If I have two pints I am way to drunk to drive, and would consider myself a serious risk on the roads. Im aware that I am probably an extreme example but Im sure Im not alone.

The delusional ones are the ones who think that after a few pints they have the same reaction times and general driving ability as when they are 100% sober.

Like I said above, is it really that much heartache not to drink when you are driving, for the sake of 1 or 2 pints?

djimi

djimi wrote: »

Like I said above, is it really that much heartache not to drink when you are driving, for the sake of 1 or 2 pints?

For me generally I wouldn't bother having just one or two pints though on occasion I might its the extra time before being legally allowed to drive the next day that would bother me more.

However I know auld lads that only have their one or two pints of an evening in the pub. They drive into twon for the paper than into the pub for an hour for a chat an a pint or two. These will suffer heartache over the new limit.

On the topic of 2 or 3 pints drastically reducing reaction times, I would like to see one of these tests being preformed as I think a lot of them find the results people want to hear.

I'm from the country an I know exactly what the craic is and take it from me it is the people who can hardly walk to their cars that need to be stopped not the lad out for his 2 or 3 pints.

Zubeneschamali

djimi wrote: »

On the contrary, its those who have 2 or 3 drinks and think that they are fine only to find out the hard way that they are not that we need to clamp down on.

I already posted the figures to prove that far more people are killed while more than double the current 80 limit than in the new 20-80 range.

There is a risk that this change will allow the authorities to claim great progress in attacking the new 50-80 category by catching "morning after" drivers. After all, a roadside checkpoint at 9:30 on a Monday is a lot easier to man than a backroad at 2:30 am on Sunday morning.

But we all know where and when road deaths happen, and it isn't during the weekday morning commute.

djimi

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I already posted the figures to prove that far more people are killed while more than double the current 80 limit than in the new 20-80 range.

There is a risk that this change will allow the authorities to claim great progress in attacking the new 50-80 category by catching "morning after" drivers. After all, a roadside checkpoint at 9:30 on a Monday is a lot easier to man than a backroad at 2:30 am on Sunday morning.

But we all know where and when road deaths happen, and it isn't during the weekday morning commute.

I dont see the difference tho; if someone is still over the limit the morning after, how is it any different to them being over the limit the night before? Im sure more accidents do happen at night than in the morning, but that does not change the fact that a person who is over the limit can cause an accident at any time of the day or night. There are more accidents at night anyway as far as Im aware, regardless of whether alcohol is involved. If 100 people are killed while many times over the limit compared to 10 who are just over the limit, isnt it better to try and save those 10 lives? Theres not much you can do about the 100; if someone is going to drive when seriously over the limit then even a zero tolerance policy is not going to stop them.

The real problem is that the guards are not putting up enough checkpoints, either in the morning or at night. Raising or lowering the limit is not going to change this. I think I said earlier in this thread that I honestly wouldnt mind being breathelized every night of the week if I knew that it meant I was safer on the road from drunk drivers, and if it meant that less people took chances flirting with the limits.

Im sure I sound like Im on my high horse about this, and I dont really mean to come across that way, but it is something I feel strongly about. I just dont understand the mentality of someone who either a) gets behind the wheel of a car when they are too drunk to drive, or b) takes a chance the morning after knowing that they may still be over the limit. Too many people dont realise how much (or little) drink it actually takes to affect their reactions, regardless of how they might feel, and whether they like or agree with the drink driving limits, if having the limits lowered means that less of them take a chance and therefore a less of them have to find out the hard way what their reaction time really is when they have drink on them, the better as far as Im concerned.

Padraig Mor

djimi wrote: »

On the contrary, its those who have 2 or 3 drinks and think that they are fine only to find out the hard way that they are not that we need to clamp down on..

No it's not. Again, I refer to the coroner who states that it's the 200+ mg drivers who are the problem, not the 50 - 80. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think people should be driving with 50 mg on board, let alone 80. However, to think that the new limit will save more lives than simply enforcing the current one rigourously is plain wrong.

djimi

djimi wrote: »

If 100 people are killed while many times over the limit compared to 10 who are just over the limit, isnt it better to try and save those 10 lives? Theres not much you can do about the 100; if someone is going to drive when seriously over the limit then even a zero tolerance policy is not going to stop them.

The problem I have with figures like "10 people were killed who were just over the limit" is that the fact that the only details about the accident that is released is that one driver was over the limit and is therefore blamed by the masses.

The fact is that the drink may have had no bearing on the crash atall. The crash could just as easily have been caused by other people involved in the crash with no drink taken.

Before you mention single vehicle accidents at 3am I can guarantee you that drivers involved in these types of crashes are well past the "just over the limit stage"

If I had a choice between driving in the morning after drinking the night before or driving while very tired I would chose the morning after drinking (except of course for stupid morning breath testing where I would go down for having alcohol despite being a bigger danger while tired). I think tiredness is a far bigger drain on you system and has a bigger effect on reaction time than small levels of alcohol. Yet the biggest zero alcohol limit campaigner wouldn't think twice about driving when tired.

cadaliac

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I already posted the figures to prove that far more people are killed while more than double the current 80 limit than in the new 20-80 range.

There is a risk that this change will allow the authorities to claim great progress in attacking the new 50-80 category by catching "morning after" drivers. After all, a roadside checkpoint at 9:30 on a Monday is a lot easier to man than a backroad at 2:30 am on Sunday morning.

But we all know where and when road deaths happen, and it isn't during the weekday morning commute.

Well said. The point exactly.

Zubeneschamali

djimi wrote: »

If 100 people are killed while many times over the limit compared to 10 who are just over the limit, isnt it better to try and save those 10 lives?

No, i think it's bleedin' obvious that we should tackle the cause of 100 deaths before the cause of 10.

Theres not much you can do about the 100; if someone is going to drive when seriously over the limit then even a zero tolerance policy is not going to stop them.

You could, like, set up check points and arrest them before they kill themselves and others.

The real problem is that the guards are not putting up enough checkpoints, either in the morning or at night. Raising or lowering the limit is not going to change this.

Precisely.

vampire of kilmainham

Drinking shouldent be allowed at all when driving i dont drive anymore anyway with some of the luneys on our roads and with the rip off's with insurance company's and car tax that just goes into the coverment's coffers anyway id never drive here again:mad::mad::mad:

Cabaal

Have to say I'm fully for this, won't affect me in anyway
Even if I drink one I won't drive under any circumstances

If you drink anything you shou;dn't be driving, if you drink 15 pints and you think after a nights sleep your ok to drive your only kidding yourself

It no different to drinking 15 pints at lunchtime and thinking its ok to drive at 8pm, its not out of your system yet!

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

Pkiernan

If I am driving, I don't take one drop of alcohol - not worth it in my opinion.

However, this law will not save a single life, nor is it about saving lives.

Vic_Mackey

An academic question, but someting I'm unclear on.

The limit was 80mg/100ml of blood and it now 50, but breathilizers measure for the level of alcohol in breath (35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath). Has this been reduced, or is it a case of it you fail the breath test, they do a blood test to get the exact amount?

Maybe this should be in ES?

seamus

Vic_Mackey wrote: »

An academic question, but someting I'm unclear on.

The limit was 80mg/100ml of blood and it now 50, but breathilizers measure for the level of alcohol in breath (35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of breath). Has this been reduced, or is it a case of it you fail the breath test, they do a blood test to get the exact amount?

Maybe this should be in ES?

This too has been reduced to 22ug of alcohol per 100ml of breath.

If you fail that, you are automatically arrested and brought to the station for a proper test.

Afaik, the Garda breathalysers don't give a numerical reading, rather a simple pass or fail.

I'd say there'll be actually a few extra false positives on this now, thinking about it. If you're within the 50mg-80mg boundary and there's sufficient time between the fail at the roadside and the test in the Garda station, your BAC could easily have dropped below the 50mg limit and you'll be released without charge.

Drumpot

If it has to be done as part of EU legislation, fair enough. .

If it statistically proves (the differance between what it was to what it will be) that it saves lives or prevents crashes, then fair enough . .

Otherwise its just a PR stunt . .

If you are tired, feeling unwell, bloated, full of gas and uncomfortable, easily confused or easily distracted you should'nt drive but I am not sure these are illegal ?

What about drinking lucozade or other stimulants (particularly with fast music) that will affect your responses ?

I am all for anything that prevents accidents, Im just cynicaly of why certain decision's are made.

Qualitymark

I'm absolutely delighted.

What I'd really like would be a no-drink rule for drivers. It's a lot easier to decide "Tonight I'm going to have soft drinks only" than it is to decide "That's enough now, no more wine".

And if you'd started the night with the decision you wouldn't drink, you'd have made arrangements already about transport home.

Qualitymark

LIGHTNING wrote: »

And then cry when you find out that it costs the same amount of money to drink soft-drinks and it does regular pints

I'd be happy to pay; cheaper than a headstone.

corktina

in fairness to Publicans, soft drinks are NOT as expensive as Pints... they are obscenely expensive in thier own right but do cost about 2/3rds of a pint on average.

corktina

corktina wrote: »

in fairness to Publicans, soft drinks are NOT as expensive as Pints... they are obscenely expensive in thier own right but do cost about 2/3rds of a pint on average.

You know something's wrong htough when a glass of diet coke is about 2.20 and you can get 2 2-litre bottles for that!

robdsherlock

it should be zero!!
if you have to drive the next morning or day then dont drink, not that hard to do!!!:rolleyes:

Qualitymark

Soft drinks in pubs are just a rip-off, the publicans think non-drinkers are their milch cows. That cartel needs to be broken.

robdsherlock

robdsherlock wrote: »

if you have to drive the next morning or day then dont drink, not that hard to do!!!:rolleyes:

It is if you want to go out regularly. Its not practical to not be able to drive the next day just because you went out the night before you would never get anything done or go anywhere at weekends if that was the case or never be able to have a mid week night out when you have to get to work the next day.

The lower limit could be the difference between being ok to drive in the morning and not being able, so more people will go down and for what a publicity stunt by the government.

The funny thing is about next day breath testing is I have had two friends bagged recently. Both were breathalysed in the early afternoon having been drinking all the evening before and up until 4 or 5am. One of them had even had a cure pint with his breakfast not long before being bagged. Both were 100% sure they would go down but both of them blew zero.

robdsherlock

Brayson Miniature Cough wrote: »

It is if you want to go out regularly. Its not practical to not be able to drive the next day just because you went out the night before you would never get anything done or go anywhere at weekends if that was the case or never be able to have a mid week night out when you have to get to work the next day.

sorry what i ment was to go out on the piss and drink 7+ pints and drive next morning, fair enough 2-3 max as it would be gone out of your system by then.

Voodoomelon

LIGHTNING wrote: »

And then cry when you find out that it costs the same amount of money to drink soft-drinks and it does regular pints

I drove to the pub a few weeks back. They had an offer, all pints €3 and all the lads were drinking. Me on the Red Bull, how much? €3.80! :mad:

Blut2

Brayson Miniature Cough wrote: »

It is if you want to go out regularly. Its not practical to not be able to drive the next day just because you went out the night before you would never get anything done or go anywhere at weekends if that was the case or never be able to have a mid week night out when you have to get to work the next day.
.

But this doesnt interfere with going out regularly at all? Why can't you go out and and just take it easy if you know youre getting up the next morning? Don't get me wrong, I'm not some anti-alcohol teetotaller, I get very, very drunk with my friends quite regularly but always make sure its when I have no driving to be doing early the next day. Any time I know I have to be up early the next day I either dont drink at all or only have 3 or 4 pints and call it a night at that. It really isnt that hard to excercise some basic self control when it comes to something as serious as drink driving.

Oh and on the price of soft drinks - I agree its bloody painful. I really think non-alcoholic beer should be exempt from the alcohol taxes, I think having pints of non-alcoholic beer available for 2e a pint (or whatever the price would be minus tax) would make a lot more people inclined to stay entirely sober when driving instead of risking a few pints.

Qualitymark

Brayson Miniature Cough wrote: »

It is if you want to go out regularly. Its not practical to not be able to drive the next day just because you went out the night before you would never get anything done or go anywhere at weekends if that was the case or never be able to have a mid week night out when you have to get to work the next day.

You can go out without drinking alcohol, dear.

slimjimmc

Blut2 wrote: »

But this doesnt interfere with going out regularly at all? Why can't you go out and and just take it easy if you know youre getting up the next morning? Don't get me wrong, I'm not some anti-alcohol teetotaller, I get very, very drunk with my friends quite regularly but always make sure its when I have no driving to be doing early the next day. Any time I know I have to be up early the next day I either dont drink at all or only have 3 or 4 pints and call it a night at that. It really isnt that hard to excercise some basic self control when it comes to something as serious as drink driving.

Oh and on the price of soft drinks - I agree its bloody painful. I really think non-alcoholic beer should be exempt from the alcohol taxes, I think having pints of non-alcoholic beer available for 2e a pint (or whatever the price would be minus tax) would make a lot more people inclined to stay entirely sober when driving instead of risking a few pints.

What if you're driving later in the day? Many people don't realise they may still be over the legal limit well into the following evening after a skinful, or even longer if they had a serious bender.

People always talk about the deaths caused by drink driving, I rarely see much about those who have sustained life-long injuries as a result of drink driving.

Qualitymark

Qualitymark wrote: »

You can go out without drinking alcohol, dear.

Sure where's the fun in that?

seamus

corktina wrote: »

in fairness to Publicans, soft drinks are NOT as expensive as Pints... they are obscenely expensive in thier own right but do cost about 2/3rds of a pint on average.

Only because they're sold in smaller volumes. A 250ml bottle of coke is typically €2.20. The equivalent of a pint of coke would cost €4.95.

If you ever get a rock shandy in a pub, the cost is usually the same as a pint of Guinness. Except that the rock shandy costs the publican about €1. Publicans are having a laugh on soft drinks, and always have.

I wouldn't be surprised if they price them that highly to discourage non-drinkers from coming to the pub - when's the last time you saw someone drink 6 pints of coke in a single sitting?

ardmacha

A 250ml bottle of coke is typically €2.20. The equivalent of a pint of coke would cost €4.95.

Worse. During the Celtic Tiger they reduced the size of Coke bottles to 200ml.

djimi

seamus wrote: »

Only because they're sold in smaller volumes. A 250ml bottle of coke is typically €2.20. The equivalent of a pint of coke would cost €4.95.

If you ever get a rock shandy in a pub, the cost is usually the same as a pint of Guinness. Except that the rock shandy costs the publican about €1. Publicans are having a laugh on soft drinks, and always have.

I wouldn't be surprised if they price them that highly to discourage non-drinkers from coming to the pub - when's the last time you saw someone drink 6 pints of coke in a single sitting?

Take it from someone who doesnt drink - soft drinks are, for the most part, more expensive than pints. A pint of 7up/coke can cost upwards of €5 depending on where you drink. In one pub I used to frequent a pint of coke (2 bottles in a pint glass) cost me I think €4.90; my mates pint used to cost something like €4.30.

Guy:Incognito

Just on the subject of soft drinks, why do people feel soft drink should be pennies compared to beer?

Adding alcohol doesnt suddenly mean something is worth €5.

LIGHTNING

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Adding alcohol means considerbably more effort in terms of brewing,more equipment, time, workers, storage, raw materials, more waste issues. Having visted quite a few breweries and soft drink factories I think its a disgrace that soft drinks are so expensive.

Try making some home made beer and then make some home made soda and then come back on here and see if it still makes sense why soft drinks are more expensive.

Tax also makes up a fair amount of the price of a pint, soft drinks are not subjected to the high excise duty on alcohol.

Cookie_Monster

corktina wrote: »

in fairness to Publicans, soft drinks are NOT as expensive as Pints... they are obscenely expensive in thier own right but do cost about 2/3rds of a pint on average.

Pint of beer 4.50
pint of cider 5
glass of wine 4.70 (iirc)
shot 5
pint of coke 5.30

need I say more
Soft drinks are about the most expensive thing in pubs aside from higher end spirits

ardmacha

A bottle of coke probably costs the pub 25c, but is sold at €2.25, or a gross profit of 800%. Beer is much more expensive as the government takes a large chunk of the price to the pub.

djimi

Stekelly wrote: »

Just on the subject of soft drinks, why do people feel soft drink should be pennies compared to beer?

Adding alcohol doesnt suddenly mean something is worth €5.

Becase I can walk into Tescos and buy a 2 litre bottle of Coke for around €2. A pint of the same Coke in a pub costs nearly €5, so youre paying 2.5 times the price for a quarter the amount. Doesnt add up does it...?

Voodoomelon

Unfortunately pubs rely on soft drinks to subsidise the cost of alcoholic drinks, high taxation on alcohol is part of the reason for this. There isn't a massive profit margin on pints as many people think.

However I think there should be a balance, if a soft drink is ordered poured, it should be cheaper than if it is served with a short.