New drink driving limit

flatout11

Tipp Man wrote: »

by that logic what can't a guy of 60 drive home after 3 pints??

thats just plain stupid
how did you come to that conclusion from my post???

ps i dont condone drink driving

finbarrk

Whatever bad country pubs were for the last few years, this stupid new law will close lots of them.

Username John

finbarrk wrote: »

Whatever bad country pubs were for the last few years, this stupid new law will close lots of them.

Do you think?

Did a lot of people go out, just to have one drink - knowing they were under the (old) limit? And will this new law now stop these one drink people going out?

I think there are social issues with living in the country side, and not being able to have a few jars in the local - as made above very well by 6600.
But I feel the new limits dont affect this - this is an issue being faced already with the old drink driving laws & limits.

As for the curfew idea Tipp_man - If we were to look at it in a pure numbers case - then we should all stop driving the weekend, to tackle the "43% of road deaths happened at the weekend" as opposed to the "38% of deaths were aged under 25"

But we all know both are ridiculous.

Also - I would question if any both changes would really just move the numbers around a bit

Tipp Man

flatout11 wrote: »

thats just plain stupid
how did you come to that conclusion from my post???

ps i dont condone drink driving

Don't worry i know you aren't condoning drink driving - i am the 1 who is doing that;)

A 24 year old belongs to the 17-25 year old category who are by far the most likely drivers to have a fatal accident

More fatal accident happen at weekends - nearly half.

So by introducing a curfew you would remove a 24 year olds right to drive on a weekend night - the curfew means that it is deemed that the 24 year old is too high a risk of a fatal accident at those times.

This is exactly the same as saying that a 60 year old is not allowed to drive after he has had 3 pints.

Both are exactly the same i.e. you identify a category of people who are deemed to be the highest risk of causing a fatal accident and you then stop them from driving. A drink driving limit is the same as a curfew -there is no difference

The real crux of the arguement is this: is a 60 year old with 3 pints inside him more likely or less likely to cause a fatal accident than a young driver at the weekend?? Given that 40% of fatalities are under 25 then you would have to say that the 60 year old with 3 or 4 pints is less likely to cause a fatality

Tipp Man

Username John wrote: »

Do you think?

Did a lot of people go out, just to have one drink - knowing they were under the (old) limit? And will this new law now stop these one drink people going out?

I think there are social issues with living in the country side, and not being able to have a few jars in the local - as made above very well by 6600.
But I feel the new limits dont affect this - this is an issue being faced already with the old drink driving laws & limits.

As for the curfew idea Tipp_man - If we were to look at it in a pure numbers case - then we should all stop driving the weekend, to tackle the "43% of road deaths happened at the weekend" as opposed to the "38% of deaths were aged under 25"

But we all know both are ridiculous.

Also - I would question if any both changes would really just move the numbers around a bit

You need to see the correlation between the 38% under 25 and the 43% at weekends. They are not mutually exclusive so a 21 year old dying on a saturday night makes up both statistics i.e he is under 25 and died at the weekend

flatout11

if we start a policy of banning on the basis of risk where will we end up
it going to be a slow process thats the reality of it
and again not all under 25 year olds cause accidents so why should they be banned

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Tipp Man wrote: »

No not at all

Young drivers are most dangerous at weekends when there is a gang of them in car mad excited and going out -usually well drunk, the driver can be sober as a judge but gets over excited and very brave. Lets be honest we have all been there done that. I know i certainly have. When egged on by the drunks overcrowded in the back they will often drive too fast, too bravely and dangerously. Might seem like a big generalisation but if we are honest with ourselves then we will admit that this is happening right across the country every weekend

My issue is not with young drivers driving at night - it is with the scenarios that inevitably happen when young drivers drive at night - especially weekend nights

very valid point. However, it doent just happen at night time, or when the car is full.

Tipp Man

flatout11 wrote: »

if we start a policy of banning on the basis of risk where will we end up
it going to be a slow process thats the reality of it
and again not all under 25 year olds cause accidents so why should they be banned

Not all people who drink and drive cause accidents (very few in fact) so why should people not allowed have a drink and drive? Is it the social stigma that has been attached to it over the last few years??

The policy of limiting driving based on risk is actually a very logical policy - the most logical if you want to bring down fatalities. It makes sense to take the people off the roads who are most likely to cause a fatality.

Look i know you have to draw the line somewhere - my point is that drink driving has taken the brunt of the crackdown - in fact it has taken all the crackdown - nothing else has been done -certainly nothing directly

For me it has now got to the point where there are other things that need to be looked at if we want to reduce road deaths further. If we are willing to accept the current levels of deaths then there is no need to bring down the drink limit - if we want to reduce deaths further then other measures are necessary

Tipp Man

Maia Limited Word wrote: »

very valid point. However, it doent just happen at night time, or when the car is full.

No that is true and i most certainly don't want to raise the driving age to 25.

flatout11

Tipp Man wrote: »

The policy of limiting driving based on risk is actually a very logical policy - the most logical if you want to bring down fatalities. It makes sense to take the people off the roads who are most likely to cause a fatality.

life is not black and white
heres a few simple examples
the irony is the young garda under 25 wont be able to drive to the checkpionts to enforce it in the first place, young nurses wont be able to drive to or from a hospital if their shift runs late, farmers sons wont be able to drive down the road to help the ould fella out with the cow thats calving, as for shift workers - go on the dole

if this is the view you take of life we could put up rational arguements for a variety of health issues, should we ban drinking and smoking for the over 50s on health grounds or ban them altogheter, close all fast food outlets to those with a wasteline of over 36 inches the list goes on and on and on
what percentage of the under 25 population have had a accident
now what percentge of the rest of the population have had an accident

there will always be a few indivudals that will drive irresponsable that can be said of all age groups, banning them is not the answer

for that matter the guys in the council that decide to put up accident black spot signs should be fired and someone should be hired to deal with the blackspot instead

in relation to drinking and local pubs if the publican had a bit of go about him, he could do a taxi service a €20 fuel will still go a long way for clients that have been there for years

Tipp Man

flatout11 wrote: »

life is not black and white
heres a few simple examples
the irony is the young garda under 25 wont be able to drive to the checkpionts to enforce it in the first place, young nurses wont be able to drive to or from a hospital if their shift runs late, farmers sons wont be able to drive down the road to help the ould fella out with the cow thats calving, as for shift workers - go on the dole

if this is the view you take of life we could put up rational arguements for a variety of health issues, should we ban drinking and smoking for the over 50s on health grounds or ban them altogheter, close all fast food outlets to those with a wasteline of over 36 inches the list goes on and on and on
what percentage of the under 25 population have had a accident
now what percentge of the rest of the population have had an accident

there will always be a few indivudals that will drive irresponsable that can be said of all age groups, banning them is not the answer

for that matter the guys in the council that decide to put up accident black spot signs should be fired and someone should be hired to deal with the blackspot instead

in relation to drinking and local pubs if the publican had a bit of go about him, he could do a taxi service a €20 fuel will still go a long way for clients that have been there for years

Do you want to see further reductions in the levels of road fatalities in Ireland??

If the answer is yes then something has to be done with the 17-25 year old age group they are by far the biggest contributors to fatalities

If you are willing to accept the current levels of fatalities then there is no need to reduce the drink limit further and there is no need for any action on young drivers.

Personally i would be willing to accept the current levels - if it stayed around 200 per annum i think we would be doing well

djmc

I suppose I started this to see what ye think of guards bagging people in the morning on the way to work and how many pints would it be safe to drink to be under 20mg the next morning.
On the young driver issue I think speed is a bigger problem than drink so maybe
they should have speed limiters fitted to there cars with a driving ban for anyone speeding who has tampered with the limiter

whelan1

i suppose most of us are lucky in that we just walk out to the yard and we are at work.... just a matter of not driving the night before

thesultan

I love the way these laws are adhered to by people who always come from cities with little awareness for country folk. Outside Dublin or Cork most people do not have endless taxi's, buses, Dart's or trains to shuffle them to and fro. It's the thing the morning that's the killer. Do everything right. Drive to the pub, Don't drive home and then collect the car in the morning yet one is scared ****less if you could be caught out

Tipp Man

djmc wrote: »

I suppose I started this to see what ye think of guards bagging people in the morning on the way to work and how many pints would it be safe to drink to be under 20mg the next morning.
On the young driver issue I think speed is a bigger problem than drink so maybe
they should have speed limiters fitted to there cars with a driving ban for anyone speeding who has tampered with the limiter

Now there is good idea and more manageable for people than a curfew

I am most definately not saying that a curfew on young drivers is the only option - just an idea if we want to reduce road deaths

All i want is for people to actually sit up and realise that drink driving isn't the be all and end all of road fatalities - there are many contributors and most of these have not been addressed yet an auld fella (or anybody really) going for a few pints and a chat is going to have to stop this before other options and avenues have been explored? I think this is wrong

corkcomp

Tipp Man wrote: »

an auld fella (or anybody really) going for a few pints and a chat is going to have to stop this before other options and avenues have been explored? I think this is wrong

See a lot of people dont think its wrong to stop that. As a regular drinker myself and someone who can handle his drink pretty well Im 100% positive that after 3 pints no one would have the same reaction time or capabilities when it comes to avoiding pedestrians on dark roads, getting the car back from a skid on ice and so many other possibilities. its fine to say they cab drive the car from A to B but sometimes thats not enough. I do realise the problem of rural isolation but there are ways around it, as i mentioned earlier a lot of the "Auld" guys I know who go for a few pints have wives / family / friends willing to pick them up but most of them dont bother asking and I think thats very wrong tbh.

Speed limiters would be an excellent idea!

8k2q1gfcz9s5d4

Tipp Man wrote: »

Do you want to see further reductions in the levels of road fatalities in Ireland??

If the answer is yes then something has to be done with the 17-25 year old age group they are by far the biggest contributors to fatalities

The amount of road deaths has come down a lot in the last 20 years. We are actually doing a decent job in recuding them, but its a neverending job, and yes it could deffinatly be improved.

Yes 17-25 year olds are the biggest contributors to fatalities, however as mentioned before, what percentage of them actually cause fatal crashes. I dont have the stats, or dont know where to look for them!

a curfew for them is not a great idea im my opinion. I cant see how it would improve the situation, would be impossible to enforce and would rule out employment possibilities for thousands of people because of a few bad apples. (I would not have been able to take my current job unless i could drive at night)

djmc wrote: »

On the young driver issue I think speed is a bigger problem than drink so maybe
they should have speed limiters fitted to there cars with a driving ban for anyone speeding who has tampered with the limiter

I think thats a great idea
In some parts of scandinavia (i tihnk sweeden), they have speed limiters in towns. so as soon as you enter a 60 or 50 zone, your car cant go above that. that would save a lot of lives here

arctictree

Just hang on there a few more years lads and we'll have automatic self driving cars:

http://www.quickonlinetips.com/archives/2010/10/google-automated-self-driving-cars-video/

20silkcut

70 or 80 years ago this was not a problem.
The problem is the car and the roads.

Is there a way around it?

Could alternative cycle paths be built between towns and villages for cyclists , pedestrians, horses etc where cars are prohibited. And stub Paths branching off to suit . Maybe farmers could use them as well for moving cattle to out farms etc.
It's the roads that are the problem here.

Maybe farmers could join up their roadways.

jeff greene

20silkcut wrote: »

70 or 80 years ago this was not a problem.
The problem is the car and the roads.

Is there a way around it?

Could alternative cycle paths be built between towns and villages for cyclists , pedestrians, horses etc where cars are prohibited. And stub Paths branching off to suit . Maybe farmers could use them as well for moving cattle to out farms etc.
It's the roads that are the problem here.

An existing road could be identified in every parish in the country and just close it down for mechanically propelled vehicles.

Home from the pub? :pac:

20silkcut

In the pub nothing is impossible.

jeff greene

20silkcut wrote: »

In the pub nothing is impossible.

Muckit

20silkcut wrote: »

70 or 80 years ago this was not a problem.
The problem is the car and the roads.

Is there a way around it?

Could alternative cycle paths be built between towns and villages for cyclists , pedestrians, horses etc where cars are prohibited. And stub Paths branching off to suit . Maybe farmers could use them as well for moving cattle to out farms etc.
It's the roads that are the problem here.

Maybe farmers could join up their roadways.

I think more people need to get back on their bike

Bizzum

Muckit wrote: »

I think more people need to get back on their bike

Exactly..............And could alternative cycle paths be built between towns and villages for cyclists, pedestrians, horses etc where cars are prohibited. And stub paths branching off to ............. Oh no NOT again:D.

As a matter of interest do these limits not apply to cyclists or indeed those on horse back?

JD7710

exactly im from a rural area myself and wouldnt be worth the money to get a taxi to come out.... lets face it boys round my area have drank and drove for years and guess what not one accident ever happened as a result of drink driving.... i cant see whats wrong with having 4 or 5 because your going to take it handy home anyway

M cebee

the drink driving is harder on people down the country
you just cant get the bus home from the pub and take the bus into work the next day when youre hungover

corkcomp

JD7710 wrote: »

exactly im from a rural area myself and wouldnt be worth the money to get a taxi to come out.... lets face it boys round my area have drank and drove for years and guess what not one accident ever happened as a result of drink driving.... i cant see whats wrong with having 4 or 5 because your going to take it handy home anyway

I once drove my car at nearly 200km/hr, when I was younger and stupid... I'm still alive to tell the tale.. does that mean I should do it again? give me a break. If you think you will be able to react as quickly after 5 pints or spot a pedestrian on a back road your delusional.

JD7710

corkcomp wrote: »

I once drove my car at nearly 200km/hr, when I was younger and stupid... I'm still alive to tell the tale.. does that mean I should do it again? give me a break. If you think you will be able to react as quickly after 5 pints or spot a pedestrian on a back road your delusional.

Under the law pedestrians are suppose to wear high vis jackets so if pedestrians actually bothered to do this it would help alot....

JustAddWater

M cebee wrote: »

the drink driving is harder on people down the country
you just cant get the bus home from the pub and take the bus into work the next day when youre hungover

Boo hoo. Then don't drink. Nobody is making you

Also, you might want to check out one of these

M cebee

JustAddWater wrote: »

Boo hoo. Then don't drink. Nobody is making you

Also, you might want to check out one of these

exactly my point

people down the country have to get taxis whereas people in the cities can avail
of buses