Lowering of drink drive limit - Nanny state strikes again

Dempsey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

AGAIN. Whats the difference? If theres a set of twins and they both head out for a night seperatley. All things beign equal other than the first lad has 3 pints and jumps in the car, heads home ealry and gets stopped by the Gards, breathalised and fails. 2nd guy has a skinfull and gets a taxi home, gets up ealry and drives to work, gets stopped by the gards and breathalised. Hase the very same level of alcohol as his brother the night before. IIs he not as impaired? What makes his crime any less?

One intentionally broke the law, the other didnt. I dont think somone who intentionally break the law should be punished the same as someone who didn't.

I think fatigue is a much bigger issue for a person than a blood alcohol level between 50-80mg/L

Guy:Incognito

Dempsey wrote: »

One intentionally broke the law, the other didnt. I dont think somone who intentionally break the law should be punished the same as someone who didn't

Ignorance is not a defence. People know full well at this stage whats involved.

Plus, whos to say the guy thats stopped in the mornign hasnt been drinking slowly all night and headed straight to work? How do you test for that?

I'm sure theres a few alcoholics aroudn that probably have a drink in the morning too.

Dempsey wrote: »

I think fatigue is a much bigger issue for a person than a blood alcohol level between 50-80mg/L

Theres no a huge amount you can do about that other than try to educate people. I've seen and heard plenty o fads about drivign tired. It's not somthign you can breathalise for.

SantryRed

Absolutely blatant money making scheme.

Guy:Incognito

SantryRed wrote: »

Absolutely blatant money making scheme.

Howzat?

Dempsey

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Ignorance is not a defence. People know full well at this stage whats involved.

Plus, whos to say the guy thats stopped in the mornign hasnt been drinking slowly all night and headed straight to work? How do you test for that?

I'm sure theres a few alcoholics aroudn that probably have a drink in the morning too.

I didnt say that they were ignorant of the law, did I?

A court of law would be the way to prove what you did in the hours leading up to the failed test.

Notorious

I'm quite annoyed at the lowering of the drink drive level. Due to where I live, I have to drive pretty much every day, therefore I rarely drink. I go out to the pub with my friends at least once a week and I like to have a single pint while I'm there. One pint will does not effect my driving ability at all. I now probably won't be able to have that one pint.

Will that small change in the alcohol levels effect the amount of people killed on Irish roads? I doubt it. If people are happy to break the limit that's in place now then why would this proposed change in the alcohol levels deter them?

Orando Broom

Drink driving is a crime of strict liability. Ignorance is simply not a defence. The mental guilt of the person at the time does not need to be established.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

Drink driving is a crime of strict liability. Ignorance is simply not a defence. The mental guilt of the person at the time does not need to be established.

Neither is ignorance of alcohol content in Daily Environment, yet you still insist on a 0.0 Level.

Your ignorance is blatant for all to see.

And you the fact that you cant see this as a money making and RSA quango scheme is hilarious. Your a ripe punter for the taking.

Degag

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

That'll be the confidence borne of alcohol.

Alcohol impairs your judgment - not just of driving but of your judgment. By which I mean, if you have taken alcohol you are in no condition to judge your own ability to drive safely.

A bit of sensibility please. We are talking about 2 pints here.

ROCKMAN

Drinking limit should be zero , just my opinion.

listermint

ROCKMAN wrote: »

Drinking limit should be zero , just my opinion.

You are another one doesnt understand 0.0 is not enforceable.

Keith186

Can't believe the amount of people looking for zero limits.

Won't make any noticeable difference IMO like the new lower limit either.

Its drunk drivers causing serious accidents and fatalities not people driving after a pint or two.

Bunch of fûcking lightweights! You know who you are!

RichieC

Sticjones wrote: »

I would be very surprised if anyone on the planet (regardless of weight/height/age/tolerance/etc) would have a blood alcohol concentration of over 0.8mg after a single drink.

there's one on the wall in a local boozer and it fails you before you even have a scoop.

Lando Griffin

geetar wrote: »

who the hell is this mickling lad?



why in this country when we bring in new laws to we bring up stories of how it will affect three 80 year olds in the country.

same thing happened with the smoking ban.



youre suggesting we abondon making new laws to save lives on our roads, to facillitate one 80 year old drink driving alcoholic.

Mickeling and thousands like him around the country whose only avenue of social life is a few pints down the local.
They have been driving since before a drink driving limit and got on all right, now they are just to be forgotton about as the like the cold shoulder of winter wraps itself around them.

Temptamperu

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Mickeling and thousands like him around the country whose only avenue of social life is a few pints down the local.
They have been driving since before a drink driving limit and got on all right, now they are just to be forgotton about as the like the cold shoulder of winter wraps itself around them.

I suppose we should forgive his racism because he was a racist before it was bad :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

Whatever limit they place on it, it's not going to stop those with a drink problem getting behind the wheel. Their cravings far outweigh the effect of any law.

Orando Broom

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whatever limit they place on it, it's not going to stop those with a drink problem getting behind the wheel. Their cravings far outweigh the effect of any law.

I know of a guy on a ten year ban driving locked, sure. But at least he was jailed. Then hospitalised.

Chuck Stone

Zero alcohol limit is stupid and punishes the moderate among us and won't deter the habitual drunk driver.

ejmaztec

Orando Broom wrote: »

I know of a guy on a ten year ban driving locked, sure. But at least he was jailed. Then hospitalised.

These are the people who, if they do manage to get home in one piece, fall out of their cars and crawl to the front door, through pools of their own piss and vomit.

The King of Moo

Degag wrote: »

A bit of sensibility please. We are talking about 2 pints here.

yupyup7up wrote: »

I reckon you should be allowed 1 pint and that's it. Can't see that doing any harm.

The problem is that different people react differently to alcohol.
Your average Irish male is used to drinking and wouldn't be greatly affected by one pint. But that doesn't mean one pint still doesn't affect you in subtle ways, and as mentioned earlier, even a fairly small amount of alcohol impairs your ability to judge your own competence.

And I know quite a few people who would be tipsy after one pint and more noticeably drunk after two.

One can be one too many.

Just because you're fairly sure that's not the case for you, doesn't make it a universal truth.

Android 666

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Mickeling and thousands like him around the country whose only avenue of social life is a few pints down the local.
They have been driving since before a drink driving limit and got on all right, now they are just to be forgotton about as the like the cold shoulder of winter wraps itself around them.

Well walking to the pub might stop him piling on the pounds, the fat bastard…

seamus

ejmaztec wrote: »

Whatever limit they place on it, it's not going to stop those with a drink problem getting behind the wheel. Their cravings far outweigh the effect of any law.

Well to be fair to that statement, statistics from the states suggest that 75% of fatal accidents where alcohol has been taken involve the driver with a BAC above 0.08%. Typically between 50% and 60% (of the total) involve a driver with a BAC over 0.16 - i.e. completely smashed.

Although the States is arguably more lax about punishing drink-driving, there's no reason to suggest why the figures wouldn't be the same here - i.e. the bulk of the danger is posed by people driving when they are well above the limit rather than people with any amount taken at all.

But that said, I would consider it an issue if they were lowering the limits and hadn't changed their stance on the overall drink-driving strategy. But they have. So I don't see a problem with lowering the limits as well. 0.05 and above still poses a statistically significant extra risk.

Android 666

Orando Broom wrote: »

That will still show up as trace, you won't be locked. The zero tolerance should be on the culture of drinking socially and thinking it's okay to drive.

If the likes of Listermint and others feels compelled to drink his pints and drive then nothing will stop him. Guys like him will flaunt the law regardless, he is typical of the Irish attitude. He is no different to the Seanie Fitzs or any named or unnamed gangster of this world you can imagine. Laws are always for other people.

This is actually baffling in terms of its lack of logic. Trace readings would still be over 0.0. That's why you can't have a 0.0 limit.

All listermint did was try to prove to you that a 0.0 limit is not a real world solution. How does that make him a gangster. You must be really high on moral outrage…

Seachmall

Here's a list of reasons why you can't have a 0.0 limit.

With 0.0 you have no margin of error, which you kind of need if you're going to prosecute someone based on the reading.

listermint

Seachmall wrote: »

Here's a list of reasons why you can't have a 0.0 limit.

With 0.0 you have no margin of error, which you kind of need if you're going to prosecute someone based on the reading.

Get out of here with your sense talk, were busy making up lies and calling people gangsters....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Degag wrote: »

A bit of sensibility please. We are talking about 2 pints here.

Two pints of what...? 4.5% beer? 6% cider? 9% Belgian X?

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Mickeling and thousands like him around the country whose only avenue of social life is a few pints down the local.
They have been driving since before a drink driving limit and got on all right, now they are just to be forgotton about as the like the cold shoulder of winter wraps itself around them.

Strawman argment, not what we said. He can

Drink less and get a taxi.
Drink less evenings and spend the saved omoney on taxis for when he does go out.
Drink non-alcoholic beverages.
Bring the neighbour and take it in turns to drive.

Orando Broom

Android 666 wrote: »

This is actually baffling in terms of its lack of logic. Trace readings would still be over 0.0. That's why you can't have a 0.0 limit.

All listermint did was try to prove to you that a 0.0 limit is not a real world solution. How does that make him a gangster. You must be really high on moral outrage…

Are you saying he's a gangster? Jaysus maybe I should mind my step.

I was only making the point that people of all stripes will flaunt laws. I used a cross section of society to show that people flaunt laws.

Seachmall

listermint wrote: »

Get out of here with your sense talk, were busy making up lies and calling people gangsters....

Quiet Mr. Capone, your rationality is endangering lives!

Android 666 wrote:

How does that make him a gangster.

Orando Broom wrote:

Are you saying he's a gangster?

biko

listermint agus Orando Broom
Cool the jets

Orando Broom

biko wrote: »

listermint agus Orando Broom
Cool the jets

No probs. Cheers.

O.

ROCKMAN

Seachmall wrote: »

Here's a list of reasons why you can't have a 0.0 limit.

With 0.0 you have no margin of error, which you kind of need if you're going to prosecute someone based on the reading.

listermint wrote: »

Get out of here with your sense talk, were busy making up lies and calling people gangsters....

ok OPEN TO BE CORRECTED ..
BUT isn't the breathalyer only the frist step and has to be follow by a blood or urine example back at the station before you can be charged ,Surely these tests will/would clear up any misunderstandings....

listermint

ROCKMAN wrote: »

ok OPEN TO BE CORRECTED ..
BUT isn't the breathalyer only the frist step and has to be follow by a blood or urine example back at the station before you can be charged ,Surely these tests will/would clear up any misunderstandings....

Your blood can still have over 0.0 Its a natural product and its in everyday stuff.


Your turn.

Android 666

Orando Broom wrote: »

Are you saying he's a gangster? Jaysus maybe I should mind my step.

I was only making the point that people of all stripes will flaunt laws. I used a cross section of society to show that people flaunt laws.

I think you should. Because if your ability to walk is as good as your ability to make a reasoned argument, I fear for your safety.

Listermint never said anything about flaunting the laws, he was trying to tell you on more than one occasion why a zero tolerance policy is not enforceable. Yeah you believe he is as contemptible as Sean Fitzpatrick or a gangster because of this. I really can't believe you can't understand the logic of the argument he is putting forward. It's not that hard to grasp.

listermint

biko wrote: »

listermint agus Orando Broom
Cool the jets

I have,

But, I also didnt call anyone names or libel them by implying they drink drive and are an out and out advocate of drink driving.

x in the city

Hank_Jones wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0922/drink.html



Why do we have to conform with everything that the EU do?

We have politicians that are a bunch of sheep, lowering the limit by such a small percentage isn't going to affect those that are drink driving.

If people want to drink drive, they are going to, shouldn't punish the people that want to go for one and drive home.

you should not drink at all if you are driving,

period.

the roads are bad enough now with useless muppets without having to contend with drink drivers of any nature.

Orando Broom

ROCKMAN wrote: »

ok OPEN TO BE CORRECTED ..
BUT isn't the breathalyer only the frist step and has to be follow by a blood or urine example back at the station before you can be charged ,Surely these tests will/would clear up any misunderstandings....

Yep. The blood test is a definitive test. I understand it's the B sample given in the station that is the critical test. whether it is intoxilyser or blood drawn I am open to correction. there was a raft of cases thrown out some years ago including over the credibility and reliability of the intoxilyser test.

Seachmall

ROCKMAN wrote: »

ok OPEN TO BE CORRECTED ..
BUT isn't the breathalyer only the frist step and has to be follow by a blood or urine example back at the station before you can be charged ,Surely these tests will/would clear up any misunderstandings....

Yes, but you can't drag someone for a blood test without reason. The point of the breathalyzer is to give the Gardai a reason. If the breathalyzer can't give accurate results with such a low limit you either have to remove the breathalyzer from the equation or higher the limit and current technology and law doesn't allow for the breathalyzer to be removed.

A point 0.0 limit is not practical, or even possible, to enforce in today's world.

ROCKMAN

listermint wrote: »

Your blood can still have over 0.0 Its a natural product and its in everyday stuff.


Your turn.

OK I accept your greater knowledge on the workings of the human body
but surely a blood test can be broken down to see everything that could or would be relevant to these cases.

Orando Broom

Seachmall wrote: »

Yes, but you can't drag someone for a blood test without reason. The point of the breathalyzer is to give the Gardai a reason. If the breathalyzer can't give accurate results with such a low limit you either have to remove the breathalyzer from the equation or higher the limit and current technology and law doesn't allow for the breathalyzer to be removed.

But the breathalyser can be off in your favour too! It just doesn't allow for difference in body mass and all the other variables.

The blood test is the definitive test.

What you are proposing is essentially a blitzed or bust test which is ridiculous.
The guard should be able to lift you on suspicion after failing a breath test and the blood test will be the conclusive proof. No harm no foul.

orourkeda

Hank_Jones wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0922/drink.html



Why do we have to conform with everything that the EU do?

We have politicians that are a bunch of sheep, lowering the limit by such a small percentage isn't going to affect those that are drink driving.

If people want to drink drive, they are going to, shouldn't punish the people that want to go for one and drive home.

Drink driving is kind of dangerous

listermint

ROCKMAN wrote: »

OK I accept your great knowledge on the workings of the human body
but surely a blood test can be broken down to see everything that could or would be relevant to these cases.

Okay what sort of level and scrutiny are you willing to go to in fairness ?

We have to have rational levels of legislation and enforcement, there has to be balance and you aint advocating any balance on either point.

Also who is going to fund all this blood testing etc etc, You? Me?

As i said in the first post, this is blatant money making exercise to burn funding and keep jobs in the quango.

Orando Broom

ROCKMAN wrote: »

OK I accept your great knowledge on the workings of the human body
but surely a blood test can be broken down to see everything that could or would be relevant to these cases.

It can but that would mean that science would stop people using the excuse of chugging a gallon of mouthwash to walk a drink driving charge.

If there is wiggle room for say one pint people will feel they are big enough and manly enough to drink say two. Those who can drink two will chance three etc ad infinitum.

With a zero baseline, the misunderstandings can be cleared up and those who are ingesting alcohol the way normal humans do so (ie. by not fermenting fruit in their tummies or chugging gallons of mouthwash or Benolyn) will be brought into the net and caught.

Orando Broom

listermint wrote: »

Okay what sort of level and scrutiny are you willing to go to in fairness ?

We have to have rational levels of legislation and enforcement, there has to be balance and you aint advocating any balance on either point.

Also who is going to fund all this blood testing etc etc, You? Me?

As i said in the first post, this is blatant money making exercise to burn funding and keep jobs in the quango.

The Garda Siochana is a quango now?

Kidchameleon

Lando Griffin wrote: »

Mickeling is 86 and lives 7 miles from town. He comes into town every night to enjoy a drink or two and play some cards and chat among the neighbours. This is what keeps Mickeling going. The pub owner assures me that Mickeling could drink 10 pints and get home safely, now Mickeling is looking at having to walk the seven miles, which is extremely dangerous as he may stagger out in front of coming car or maybe stagger into a drain full of brambles and get kilt.
Every time Mickeling leaves the pub, the publican wonders if the next time he will see Mickeling being the centre of attention at a wake?
If he were allowed drive home this would not happen. Its all right for city folk who can get taxis home, but out the country they are two a penny, once again a nail in the coffin of the publicans and the traditions of rural society where the pub used to be the hub of the parish.

If he's so pissed that he's staggering, the he most certainly should not be driving.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

It can but that would mean that science would stop people using the excuse of chugging a gallon of mouthwash to walk a drink driving charge.

If there is wiggle room for say one pint people will feel they are big enough and manly enough to drink say two. Those who can drink two will chance three etc ad infinitum.

With a zero baseline, the misunderstandings can be cleared up and those who are ingesting alcohol the way normal humans do so (ie. by not fermenting fruit in their tummies or chugging gallons of mouthwash or Benolyn) will be brought into the net and caught.

Utter nonsense, where are you getting this from. No Doubt various studies obviously.

Look your Zero rate has been proven by various posters today to be completely flawed in terms of Real World enforcement, why cant you just accept it.

Seachmall

Orando Broom wrote: »

What you are proposing is essentially a blitzed or bust test which is ridiculous.

I didn't propose anything?

The guard should be able to lift you on suspicion after failing a breath test and the blood test will be the conclusive proof. No harm no foul.

Suspicion of failing the breath test? The point is everybody will fail the breath test, by how much they fail depends on various factors none of which has to do with alcohol (how or when much they've eaten or drank, when they last brushed their teeth etc.).

That is the problem.

Orando Broom

listermint wrote: »

Utter nonsense, where are you getting this from. No Doubt various studies obviously.

Look your Zero rate has been proven by various posters today to be completely flawed in terms of Real World enforcement, why cant you just accept it.

Indeed it has and as we know this august scientific institution known as After Hours has also been at the vanguard of several other peer reviewed scientific breakthroughs.

It is remarkable how little credit the 'other posters' get within the scientific community.

The OPINIONS of the other posters are just that. You have opinions and nothing more.

Zero rate is viable and doable, despite what The After hours scientific community thinks.

Orando Broom

Seachmall wrote: »

I didn't propose anything?
Suspicion of failing the breath test? The point is everybody will fail the breath test, by how much they fail depends on various factors none of which has to do with alcohol (how or when much they've eaten or drank, when they last brushed their teeth etc.).

That is the problem.

No, suspicion of Drink driving. Please reread. They can't arrest you for actual drink driving as you have not been conclusively proven to have driven intoxicated.

Seachmall

Orando Broom wrote: »

The OPINIONS of the other posters are just that. You have opinions and nothing more.

Actually I posted 3 or 4 links that explain why your BAC may be above 0.0 despite the fact no alcohol may have been consumed.

No, suspicion of Drink driving. Please reread. They can't arrest you for actual drink driving as you have not been conclusively proven to have driven intoxicated.

What suspicion will they have that someone with a BAC of 0.02 has been drinking given it doesn't result in any noticeable behaviour?

Orando Broom

Seachmall wrote: »

Actually I posted 3 or 4 links that explain why your BAC may be above 0.0 despite the fact no alcohol may have been consumed.

The consumption amounts you are talking about to show up on a Brethalyser for starters of trace levels of alcohol that may be in food and mouthwash are HUGE!! You are talking about practically fermenting fruit in the human digestive system. Theoretically possible, yes but in actuality the only way you could have ingested the sufficient quantities of alcohol to be in a compromised position is by drinking alcohol in the regular fashion we ingest it, through booze.