Lowering of drink drive limit - Nanny state strikes again

the_syco

Orando Broom wrote: »

I'm happy to let you work away, you are the chap dealing in the absolutes.

Orando Broom wrote: »

Zero Tolerance. Draconian levels of inspection.

How is zero not an absolute?

bedirect

The limits are even lower for provisional drivers, persons actually caught driving a truck or a taxi. Personally I try to avoid drink driving, as regards the next day would you be happly with the pilot of an aircraft you were boarding being over the legal limit.

Android 666

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?

The person who is going to get in the car with four or five drinks is going to do it irrespective of what the drink driving laws are. People seemed to not realise the cultural shift that has occured in Ireland over the last 20 years in relation to drink driving. As has pointed out already we have some of the lowest road deaths of any country and the amount of people dying on the roads in this country is seriously down and that's with more cars on the road. People will still drink and drive - that can't be stopped completely and the reason the laws are in place are to punish these people. Do I think the changes in the law are going to have a major effect on people's attitudes to drinking and driving here? In my opinion no but I think that for the most part that cultural shift in our attitudes has happened in terms of the fact that there is no longer a tacit allowance of drink driving amongst peers. Will that stop some people drink driving? Yes. Will it stop all people? No.

tayto lover

BREAKING NEWS

Mickerling has given up the drink.
He is instead visiting prostitutes and they leave him home.

Keith186

Keith186 wrote: »

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.

It's not about drinking enough to be tipsy, clumsy or even a bit drowsy. It's about the fact that after one drink you don't realise it's affected you. You can walk totally normally, you can talk totally normally, and you can perform the physical act of driving (ie. the moving your hands and feet part) totally normally. I could easily have two drinks at lunch in college and go back to my next lecture totally fine, able to understand, and take neat notes etc. But no matter how fine I'd feel, or how normally I'd function, my brain wouldn't actually be moving at the same speed, and my attention wouldn't be held as easily. Now this wouldn't make much of a difference in class, but it's a big difference behind a wheel.

No matter how normal you feel after one drink, your reaction times aren't as fast, you're distracted more easily, you're over-confident, and you're not as prepared for the unexpected. One drink isn't sure to cause an accident, but it makes them more likely. I know that doesn't sound like much of a deterrent, but if you did hit a child, would you really not consider what would have happened if you hadn't had that drink? It's a bit arrogant in my opinion to think one drink doesn't affect you just because you're not drunk.

The bottom line is that one drink doesn't leave you sober, and it's not just your own life you're risking behind the wheel.

Seachmall

true-or-false wrote: »

your reaction times aren't as fast, you're distracted more easily, you're over-confident, and you're not as prepared for the unexpected.

I'd love to see the comparison of how a sober 20 year old differs in these categories from a 20 year old after 1 pint and how a 20 year old differs in these categories from a 60 year old.

If the reaction times, ease of distraction, confidence level and preparedness are similar it might be a way to get old people off the road.

I.e. If a 20 year old performs at a High level when sober but at a Low level after 1 pint and a 60 year old performs constantly at a Low level it is a good argument for banning elderly from driving (if the argument for the 20 year old not being allowed to drive because of drinking 1 pint is being made).

It'd be a fairly interesting study.

Anyway, I think it's fair to say that there are some people on the road who constantly drive worse the average healthy person does after 1 pint. It logically follows if you ban one you should ban the other.

LH Pathe

moderate drinking is not an addiction anyhow. just a mild urge at worst that should be resisted under the circumstances... but then I've no clue, pretty much stopped drinking when I turned 18

But folk that visit the AA should never even be permitted the means under which circumstances may require the services of the AA. aka alcoholics

Sticjones

true-or-false wrote: »

It's not about drinking enough to be tipsy, clumsy or even a bit drowsy. It's about the fact that after one drink you don't realise it's affected you. You can walk totally normally, you can talk totally normally, and you can perform the physical act of driving (ie. the moving your hands and feet part) totally normally. I could easily have two drinks at lunch in college and go back to my next lecture totally fine, able to understand, and take neat notes etc. But no matter how fine I'd feel, or how normally I'd function, my brain wouldn't actually be moving at the same speed, and my attention wouldn't be held as easily. Now this wouldn't make much of a difference in class, but it's a big difference behind a wheel.

No matter how normal you feel after one drink, your reaction times aren't as fast, you're distracted more easily, you're over-confident, and you're not as prepared for the unexpected. One drink isn't sure to cause an accident, but it makes them more likely. I know that doesn't sound like much of a deterrent, but if you did hit a child, would you really not consider what would have happened if you hadn't had that drink? It's a bit arrogant in my opinion to think one drink doesn't affect you just because you're not drunk.

The bottom line is that one drink doesn't leave you sober, and it's not just your own life you're risking behind the wheel.

To be honest if you're gonna think like that, nobody would be on the road. There are millions of things that affect you, driver fatigue is FAR more dangerous to the driver and other road users than someone who has had a pint or 2. Headaches, sneezing, etc - these are impossible to enforce though.

Enforcing a strict 10km/h speed limit on every road in the country would pretty much reduce road deaths to zero. But is it practical ? no. But what about those 200 people who are going to die this year - are their lives not worth it? To society - no they are not worth it doing something so harsh and impractical.

What I am trying to say is, so long as we are using advanced transport technologies like cars, planes, boats, etc there will be a fatality rate but what is acceptable? Who draws the line?

arybvtcw0eolkf

Degag wrote: »

I drive home after a few pints and have no problem saying so.

I'm the same, I'd have two pints after training then boot it home before the ten PM shift starts!.

Used to, I'm more or less off the gargle now and tbh its not the two pints I'd have had after training which ever bothered me, its driving to work next morning and still feeling ropey after a skinfull.

LH Pathe

If you're not even permitted have a toke of a J anywhere let alone behind the wheel.. Then even a slurp of the pisch should be banned outright. let alone behind the wheel

so let's have a social think over it.. In corresponding thread.

wingsof daun

I blame the new drink driving law on the Zionists and the rogue state of Israel. Them people are capable of creating just about any law. They are probably driving around now loaded with drink themselves immune to our state laws :mad:. Garda and politians doing their dirty work and making money for them. "Israel 2" I would call this country - Eire as I knew it is long gone .

Android 666

wingsof daun wrote: »

I blame the new drink driving law on the Zionists and the rogue state of Israel. Them people are capable of creating just about any law. They are probably driving around now loaded with drink themselves immune to our state laws :mad:. Garda and politians doing their dirty work and making money for them. "Israel 2" I would call this country - Eire as I knew it is long gone .

Israel 2 is what you'd call this country, Idiotic is what I'd call that post.

Sticjones

Sticjones wrote: »

To be honest if you're gonna think like that, nobody would be on the road. There are millions of things that affect you, driver fatigue is FAR more dangerous to the driver and other road users than someone who has had a pint or 2. Headaches, sneezing, etc - these are impossible to enforce though.

I agree it seems over-cautious and pedantic. Roads would be safer if people didn't drive when angry, elderly, tired, playing music, hungry, it's rainy, or if they've had a bad day, but that's both ridiculous and impossible to enforce.

But having to drive sober is relatively enforceable, and certainly lowering the limit to 20mg/L will make people a bit more careful, and probably cause a few people to say "it's not worth the bother to have one and try to get away with it". Lowering the limit isn't going to directly hurt anyone, but if there's a chance it could save a few lives, it's worth it IMO.

It's also probably worth keeping in mind that some people (my mother is an example) do actually get quite tipsy, or even drunk on an empty stomach, on one glass of wine.

Dave147

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.

That's retarded. I went to a 21st before and didn't want to drink, but felt obliged to. I had the car outside, so I had ONE bottle of Heineken, that was fine for me, I knew I had the car outside so had no interest in having any more than that. I was completely sober leaving that 21st, dropped my friend home and went home myself, are you telling me that I should be banned from driving for 2 years? Ridiculous. I don't agree with driving over the limit, but a blanket statement like that is stupid. There's many people who could go out for 2 pints and drive home and still be better drivers than most people on the roads. It's the fella's out getting pissed and driving are the problem.

Well done on your thanks whoring post btw..

For the record, I've never caused an accident, and am confident I never will, I've suffered back problems for 4 years due to being rear ended at 40mph and my mother was bedridden for a year due to a car accident, alcohol was never involved. People stupidity was however.

Pompey Magnus

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!

I'd love to know how many of those who advocate a 0% alcohol limit would listen to the music or operate their climate control system whilst driving?

I'd bet a good driver paying attention to what he/she is doing but who has had a small amount of alcohol would be far safer than a completely sober driver who is fiddling with their climate control to get just the temperature whilst singing along to Bruno Mars.

I'd love to know why these people aren't also demanding that radios be banned from cars and that if someone wishes to operate their climate control (or wind down their window or adjust their rear view mirror etc) they must first pull over to the side of the road and come to a complete stop before they can do so. Maybe we could even ban passengers from engaging in all conversation whilst driving for fear of an interesting topic momentarily distracting the driver's attention.

If these people are so concerned about ensuring drivers be in the absolute best possible condition for driving then I don't see why they don't get up in arms about every possible cause of driver distraction, why do they just obsess about alcohol?

Pdfile

should of been brought in many many moons ago.

Crazy Horse 6

Good idea. Now to have a lifetime ban for anyone caught over the limit. Drink drivers are the scum of the earth.

listermint

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.

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

Ahh the old ignorance is bliss adage,

Perhaps you missed my post where i said my father was near killed when he was rear ended at 80 Kmph last year on his way to work on the Nass Road. Hmm Doesnt look like your reading these posts.

That driver was on drink (absolutely wasted) and drugs, and when his car went up on the embankment after the crash the tool was so wasted he pulled out a can and started drinking that. Yes the guards got him.

But see like other posters here i dont let emotions run policy because that is an insane way to bring about legislation. Its only a moron who would condone an 0.0 limit and it makes no sense.

But hey my stories of personal crashes, wont get a 'thanks' because i disagree with some people.

Uriel.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Nanny state?
LOL
Banning smoking in pubs is the nanny state in action.
Banning drinking and driving is common sense.

Are you a smoker... :rolleyes:

To be honest. both bans are common sense. If you want to fúck up your own body with smoke, that's fine, but don't make everyone else suffer with you.

Liam Byrne

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Irish people going to the pub for just the one

What's your point ? Are you suggesting that I'm not Irish ?

The bottom line is that they should allow someone have A drink and drive home, and in return people should act reponsibly and avoid that one drink if they've not eaten or if they're tired.

But based on observations there's a lot of truth in the possibility that the nanny state exists because too many people are idiots and regularly behave in ways that should be embarrassing or illegal or both.

Dionysus

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Nanny state?
LOL
Banning smoking in pubs is the nanny state in action.
Banning drinking and driving is common sense.

I'm actually very happy with being able to go to the pub and not have to come home with my clothes stinking of other people's fumes. If that's the "nanny state in action", please can we have more of it.

Dionysus

This "nanny state" mantra is quite embarrassing - lifted as it is straight from a tabloid campaign in the British media in the past ten years, which itself was taken from a British conservative politician in the 1960s.

People who talk about a "nanny state" in Britain are invariably a local version of the lunatic, small state, gun-totting, paranoid neocons in the US.

Other candidates for "nanny state" accusations: the state insisting that companies have to abide by health and safety legislation, putting legal protections in place to help vulnerable workers, warning people about the dangers of obesity and smoking, promoting good health, giving pensions to old and vulnerable people, putting structures in place to help disabled people ....

As for drink driving, it's blatantly hypocritical of our state to spend millions on an "If you drink, don't drive", while then legislating so that we all can have some drink. It's time legislation caught up with the advertising campaign of our state.

listermint

Dionysus wrote: »

This "nanny state" mantra is quite embarrassing - lifted as it is straight from a tabloid campaign in the British media in the past ten years, which itself was taken from a British conservative politician in the 1960s.

People who talk about a "nanny state" in Britain are invariably a local version of the lunatic, small state, gun-totting, paranoid neocons in the US.

Other candidates for "nanny state" accusations: the state insisting that companies have to abide by health and safety legislation, putting legal protections in place to help vulnerable workers, warning people about the dangers of obesity and smoking, promoting good health, giving pensions to old and vulnerable people, putting structures in place to help disabled people ....

As for drink driving, it's blatantly hypocritical of our state to spend millions on an "If you drink, don't drive", while then legislating so that we all can have some drink. It's time legislation caught up with the advertising campaign of our state.

so what are you advocating 0.0 ? im not getting your point.

Also would you agree that the money spent on these campaigns should now be redirected to areas such as road conditions, driver training, no VAT on vital safety equipment in cars of which Irish people are charged luxury tax of 21%.

The old vision of people going out getting drunk and driving doesnt stack up, the campaign has worked but they need to address other areas. There aer black spot roads out there that take lifes regularly and all the get is a sign saying 'black spot slow down' What about rubble strips?

This idea stinks and it will have f'all impact on road fatalities. It needs new focus and other more pressing areas have to be dealt with.

reprazant

There is no way you can have 0.0 limit.

There is alcohol in lots of food.

People can have very small amounts of alcohol in their system without realising it.

texidub

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 the publican gave such a sh*t about Mickeling he wouldn't be charging those prices.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

texidub wrote: »

If the publican gave such a sh*t about Mickeling he wouldn't be charging those prices.

Mickeling has unfortunately passed away. The barman tried to take his keys and Mickeling fough back, giving himself a heart attack in the process.

listermint

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Mickeling has unfortunately passed away. The barman tried to take his keys and Mickeling fough back, giving himself a heart attack in the process.

This is indeed a sorry state of affairs

Android 666

listermint wrote: »

This is indeed a sorry state of affairs

I think there should be a zero tolerance approach to barmen keeping the punter's car keys away from them. The amount of heart attack related fatalities because of this senseless practice is astonishing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Android 666 wrote: »

I think there should be a zero tolerance approach to barmen keeping the punter's car keys away from them. The amount of heart attack related fatalities because of this senseless practice is astonishing.

Ah, but can the barman be prosecuted if he serves drink knowing that the customer is driving home?

Android 666

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ah, but can the barman be prosecuted if he serves drink knowing that the customer is driving home?

If he only has traces of information he's fine but if you knows that punter wants to drive then he's like Seany Fitz or some other gangster…