Lowering of drink drive limit - Nanny state strikes again

Degag

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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

.

Seachmall

Orando Broom wrote: »

The consumption amounts you are talking about to show up on a Brethalyser for starters of trace amounts of alcohol 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.

That's incorrect.

I suppose the real question is, how low can the limit be without incriminating things like mouthwash? There's probably no set figure, it most likely varies depending on the person.

As much as I'd like to see a zero limit, I just can't see it being workable.

Orando Broom

Seachmall wrote: »

That's incorrect.

Wow. Wikipedia. That's me in my place! :rolleyes:

Again, the blood test will show you were gargling mouthwash, not...erm, gargle.

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

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.

You have actually given ZERO facts to back your ZERO tolerance rate. Actually its laughable near hilarious that you are still considering this line.

Your idea is to arrest EVERYONE who fails the breathalyser because thats what will happen anyone who eats / brushes their teeth in the morning will have an extraordinarily high chance of failing your 'insane' test and then have to go through a blood test to check otherwise.

It has me amused at this stage that you cant see the forest for the trees.

I love the fact though that you are immoveable praise on that. :pac: :pac:

listermint

Orando Broom wrote: »

Wow. Wikipedia. That's me in my place! :rolleyes:

Again, the blood test will show you were gargling mouthwash, not...erm, gargle.

ha ha blood tests for everyone who cleans themselves in the morning.

Your digging a might hole, il throw you a rope mate.

Seachmall

Orando Broom wrote: »

Wow. Wikipedia. That's me in my place! :rolleyes:

Because your sources are accurate, right?

Oh, wait.

Again, the blood test will show you were gargling mouthwash, not...erm, gargle

Again, it's impractical to bring everybody who has used mouthwash or breath spray or eaten desert or steak in a restaurant in the last half hour for a blood test. It's expensive, both in money and time.

listermint

Seachmall wrote: »

Because you're sources are accurate, right?

Oh, wait.


Again, it's impractical to bring everybody who has used mouthwash or breath spray or eaten desert or steak in a restaurant in the last half hour for a blood test. It's expensive, both in money and time.

Orando is offering his services for free, on his quest to clear the roads of our deadly killer. Listerine..... :P

Orando Broom

listermint wrote: »

You have actually given ZERO facts to back your ZERO tolerance rate. Actually its laughable near hilarious that you are still considering this line.

Your idea is to arrest EVERYONE who fails the breathalyser because thats what will happen anyone who eats / brushes their teeth in the morning will have an extraordinarily high chance of failing your 'insane' test and then have to go through a blood test to check otherwise.

It has me amused at this stage that you cant see the forest for the trees.

I love the fact though that you are immoveable praise on that. :pac: :pac:

listermint wrote: »

ha ha blood tests for everyone who cleans themselves in the morning.

Your digging a might hole, il throw you a rope mate.

I'm happy to let you work away, you are the chap dealing in the absolutes. Your posts are filled with so much fallacy I don't know where to start. Ok Mouthwash. the alcohol in mouthwash is denatured. But don't let that fact get in the way. I just wouldn't go buying beer with denatured alcohol in it.

I'm really not sure what you'd be eating brushing your teeth with to cause you to fail a breath test but there you go. Listermint -1 Science - 0.

I am disappointed and surprised in near equal measure that my posts can be deemed laughable but not hilariously laughable.

I am immovable praise??? Thanks, I think.

In your world everything is made form alcohol, it seems.

Orando Broom

Seachmall wrote: »

Because your sources are accurate, right?

Oh, wait.


Again, it's impractical to bring everybody who has used mouthwash or breath spray or eaten desert or steak in a restaurant in the last half hour for a blood test. It's expensive, both in money and time.

Again like I said to Listermint I am at a loss to understand as to why everything is made from alcohol.

also under my proposals you wouldn't be able to give yourself a colonic with Methylated Spirits. sorry to disappoint.

Orando Broom

Anyways I'm out, I've said all I have to say on this thread...

See Yis S & LM.

Seachmall

Orando Broom wrote: »

Again like I said to Listermint I am at a loss to understand as to why everything is made from alcohol.

Because it lightens the mood obviously.

Anyway, the point is you will fail a breathalyzer test after using or eating these products. A blood test you won't fail obviously but why drag half the population for blood tests just to satisfy curiosity. It costs a lot of money and wastes a lot of police, citizen, and lab tester's time.

Orando Broom

Well you say you're gone, but just incase you're reading:

Orando Broom wrote: »

I presume this is the locked calculation!!

General walking pace is 4mph, which as far as I know is about 6.5kph, so yeah 5 km is around an hour's walk.

Orando Broom wrote: »

Again, the blood test will show you were gargling mouthwash, not...erm, gargle.

But if you breathalyse 100 people one morning, most will have used mouthwash recently, so you'll have to blood test almost 100 people. Most of whom wont be over the limit at all. So anyone who drives at all should expect regular blood testing?

Orando Broom wrote: »

Ok Mouthwash. the alcohol in mouthwash is denatured. But don't let that fact get in the way. I just wouldn't go buying beer with denatured alcohol in it.

Denatured alcohol still contains ethanol molecules, which will show up on a breathalyser test.

A limit of 20mg/L is a great idea I think. It should go across the board. Low enough to scare anyone who's scareable, but not so low that it can't be distinguished whether or not someone was actually drinking or just has ethanol in their mouth.

Hank_Jones

luas_dublin wrote: »

Remember kids , its OK to have people killed on the roads by drunk drivers , so long as a few elderly cluchies can get to the boozer.
...sheesh

That is not what I am saying.

I was leaning towards people being able to have one drink and then driving home,
which I wouldn't see as a major issue.

DOC09UNAM

Anyone who thinks 0.0 would work is a complete idiot.

Rented Mule

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

here, here, 30 lashes and beheadings for anyone caught drink driving

Perhaps in the reverse order.

nicechick!

Orando Broom wrote: »

Was nearly killed by a drunk driver. Middle of the Day, driving with my Dad. He slammed straight into us. Had the presence of mind to go into his neighbours house and get a whiskey off them for the 'shock'. Guards couldn't do him for DD. He then tried to sue my Dad for damages!!

Cop your self on for fücks sake.

Consider your fücking stance before you start talking through your hoop.

I'd happily do a ban for what I want to call you right now.

I am from a rural area. I am also from a family that owns a pub. I am of the firm opinion that the drink driving laws in this country are far too lenient.

Zero Tolerance. Draconian levels of inspection.

The same thing happened to my dad! however the eejit that crashed into my dad was arrested at the scene for DD and the Guards had also seen the whole thing

He still tryed to sue!!!!!!!!!

Mike 1972

true-or-false wrote: »

A limit of 20mg/L is a great idea I think. It should go across the board. Low enough to scare anyone who's scareable, but not so low that it can't be distinguished whether or not someone was actually drinking or just has ethanol in their mouth.

For all practical purposes a 20mg/L limit is as close to zero as dammit* but still allows some leeway for naturally occurring/residual/background alcohol or things like mouthwash etc. I suspect there probably isint such a thing as a brethalyser that meaures down to zero anyway as if someone attempted to manufacture such a thing the inevitable margin of error inherent in any testing process would give rise to false positives.

I would hazard a guess that in those countries where the alcohol limit is officially zero It is probably the case that the real limit is somewhere between 5 and 20mg for this very reason.

* Unless of course there are people somewhere in the world who go down to the pub for a third of a glass of low strength beer and then drive home ?

IrishEyes19

listermint wrote: »

You have given no actual stats on this. Would you not think decisions should be made on stats and not knee jerk reactions ? or by policy makers with hidden agendas ?

once again we have one of the lowest road fatalities in Europe per capita, even though other states have 0.2 limits. So explain that?

Road Conditions / Speed / Falling asleep behind the wheel? What are your policies on tackling these rather than another high profile pouring of money into a marketing campaign that isnt warranted in the first place.

Who the f***k needs a stat to prove that drinking when driving isn't right and no I wont explain why we have the lowest fatalities in Europe, again that doesnt apply to this discussion. It doesnt lessen the fact that drink driving is wrong.

Maybe if this personally affected you, it would make a difference. Ignorance is bliss I guess :rolleyes:

IrishEyes19

Who the f***k needs a stat to prove that drinking when driving isn't right and no I wont explain why we have the lowest fatalities in Europe, again that doesnt apply to this discussion. It doesnt lessen the fact that drink driving is wrong.

What are my policies on falling asleep behind the wheel, speeding, ect. Firstly Im not qualified to answer of these, and once again is about drink driving, not what you have mentioned. My ideas for those??? Hmm, well just of my head, falling asleep behind the wheel? Pull over, its very simple. Ive done it before when Ive felt very tired, pulled over for half an hour, or asked my companion to take over for the rest of the journey. And speeding. well thats an issue thats still on going isnt it? Still havent cracked down on it, so that I cant answer.

But drink driving is very simple. There are no exceptions. Drink alters our mind, our actions. And I wouldnt take a risk for anything. You want your one drink in the local, get a taxi or learn to walk!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe if this personally affected you, it would make a difference. Ignorance is bliss I guess

Seachmall

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

Who the f***k needs a stat to prove that drinking when driving isn't right and no I wont explain why we have the lowest fatalities in Europe, again that doesnt apply to this discussion. It doesnt lessen the fact that drink driving is wrong.

Stats are the most important factor in a discussion such as this.

The point is we've achieved a low fatality rate using the current method of public awareness that instead of pumping more money into it we tackle other issues that need to be addressed. Improving road conditions, more actively tackling speeding and providing better training for learner drivers will all help reduce death rates on the road. We've only a limited amount of money to spend on the subject and instead of focusing on one of the issues that has been the main focus for a long time we could focus on one of the other issues that hasn't been addressed as much as it should.

Maybe if this personally affected you, it would make a difference. Ignorance is bliss I guess :rolleyes:

Policy should never be based on emotion.

IrishEyes19

Seachmall wrote: »

Stats are the most important factor in a discussion such as this.

The point is we've achieved a low fatality rate using the current method of public awareness that instead of pumping more money into it we tackle other issues that need to be addressed. Improving road conditions, more actively tackling speeding and providing better training for learner drivers will all help reduce death rates on the road. We've only a limited amount of money to spend on the subject and instead of focusing on one of the issues that has been the main focus for a long time we could focus on one of the other issues that hasn't been addressed as much as it should.

Policy should never be based on emotion.

The OP didnt talk about policy in their original post, the quote I have refered to is where they said, why punish those who want a one drink and drive home.

I have no respect regardless of policies, regardless of statistics, regardless of emotion for drink drivers. Scum in my eyes.
I never talked about spending money ect, Im talking about the individual person, who can decide to walk home, get a taxi or else risk injuring themselves or someone else.

Seachmall

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

The OP didnt talk about policy in their original post, the quote I have refered to is where they said, why punish those who want a one drink and drive home.

The post you quoted asked how we could tackle other important issues if we keep pouring all our money into drunk drivers.

Degag

You'd swear by the way some people are talking on this thread that after consuming one pint, the majority of people turn into a slobbering mess, not being able to think for themselves, slurring their words and generally not in control of their own actions!

Reg'stoy

You'd swear by the way some people are talking on this thread that the can't possibily enjoy themselves without drinking. If one pint has no real effect then why bother drinking it in the first place. Leave the car or drink a rock shandy.

Seachmall

Degag wrote: »

You'd swear by the way some people are talking on this thread that after consuming one pint, the majority of people turn into a slobbering mess, not being able to think for themselves, slurring their words and generally not in control of their own actions!

Aye, I'd imagine it's fair to say that some countries use scientific studies to base their drink driving limit on but of course experts on the subject are rarely louder than the self-assumed experts known as "the general public".

Keith186

Degag wrote: »

You'd swear by the way some people are talking on this thread that after consuming one pint, the majority of people turn into a slobbering mess, not being able to think for themselves, slurring their words and generally not in control of their own actions!

There's no talking to them, its bizzare that some feel so strongly about it.

Maybe these are people that would have a sherry at Xmas once a year and be fairly tipsy so they say there's no way you can drive after a pint.

Get real pioneers! Two pints would have a negligible effect.

Cynortas

AeoNGriM wrote: »

Feckoff, if you want to drink, then either stay at home or take a bus/taxi.

Anyone who drinks and then gets behind the wheel of a car is a complete muppet, regardless of how much they've had.

completely agree if u wanna drink then dont be fecking driving its silly an dangerous and i think the new measures are brill

IrishEyes19

Seachmall wrote: »

Aye, I'd imagine it's fair to say that some countries use scientific studies to base their drink driving limit on but of course experts on the subject are rarely louder than the self-assumed experts known as "the general public".

I really dont get where you come about saying people here are self assumed experts. People are merely expressing opinions. And if someone agrees or disagrees, its in their right to express an opinion. Who are you to point out who is right or wrong. Nor am I dismissing scientific research at all, it's important of course. In fact I have no issue with the laws here on drink driving, I was merely saying, one drink for a person who is safe on the road without fail, leads to another person who will look on it and maybe have 4 drinks, ect. Where does it end then?

Seachmall

IrishEyes19 wrote: »

I really dont get where you come about saying people here are self assumed experts. People are merely expressing opinions. And if someone agrees or disagrees, its in their right to express an opinion. Who are you to point out who is right or wrong. Nor am I dismissing scientific research at all, it's important of course. In fact I have no issue with the laws here on drink driving, I was merely saying, one drink for a person who is safe on the road without fail, leads to another person who will look on it and maybe have 4 drinks, ect. Where does it end then?

My stance is I don't think anybody should drink and drive, not even a single pint. However I'm against focusing on, and pumping money into, a single tactic when it results in other factors not getting the attention they deserve when the money may be more efficiently spent there.

Essentially I don't believe a single pint inhibits driving ability to the point where it deserves all our attention and money.