Drink Driving

Breffnigolfer

Jumboman wrote: »

You should be allowed to have 1 or 2 drinks with a meal etc.

I don't think people who have had 1 or 2 drinks are a major danger on the roads.

The zero drink drive limit is just political correctness in my opinion.

Why the necessity for so many people to have to have alcohol? If alcohol is required so bad that person has a dependency problem.

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

Then don't "pop in for 2 or 3". If you're driving don't drink. I can't believe this is even a topic of conversation in 2014.

Not having them is not really the solution people want.

People driving after 2 or 3 pints ads not an issue. Drunk drivers are the issue and pestering and putting hardship on people having a few is simply unfair.

Haithabu

Dunford wrote: »

Drink drivers are dangerous idiots. To themselves and others. Rural living is difficult to get to a bar.but drink driving isn't the answer.

It is very difficult indeed to get to a bar. And even more difficult to get home afterwards. And the roads are typically so dangerous that it is even unsafe to get home on foot because there is no sidewalk or even space to walk.

The only option is to arrange transport before you go out. Either have someone pick you up or if you are in a group, draw lots on a designated driver. Life is too precious to take risks. You don't want to risk your own life and not someone elses life.

In fairness I have been out a lot without drinking this year and I had my fun. Non-alcoholic beers used to be really bad but non-alcoholic Erdinger is good enough by now. Yes, I know it's less fun to be the only one in a group who does not drink, you can't laugh at the jokes you would laugh at if you would had a few pints but if you killing someone when driving drunk is no fun either.

Having a designated driver has also the advantage that you have someone who can make sure the group avoids trouble, you have someone who can reason and steer the others away.

hynesie08

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

Not having them is not really the solution people want.

People driving after 2 or 3 pints ads not an issue. Drunk drivers are the issue and pestering and putting hardship on people having a few is simply unfair.

Luckily the law disagrees with you and your frankly selfish view of things.

Tarzana2

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

Very different people in your area so

Very different people everywhere. But of course you extrapolate your own experiences to everyone erroneously, as always.

Jumboman

Breffnigolfer wrote: »

Why the necessity for so many people to have to have alcohol? If alcohol is required so bad that person has a dependency problem.

Its nothing to do with dependency its about meeting up for a social drink.

If somebody was an alcoholic they could just stay at home and drink 20 cans without any social interaction.

Bruthal

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Nope, on the average person.

Average height, average amount of food eaten, average alcohol tolerance.

The average male.

And I think you should be allowed drive just after finishing the 3rd pint.

And how do you test if a person's the average male? How about testing the concentration of alcohol in the blood? Would that not tell us?

It is possible to pass the test after 3 pints. And the same "average male" can then fail the test on another occasion. Can you guess why?

Bruthal

UCDVet wrote: »

Alcohol reduces your ability to drive. But if you think about it, the better driver you are, the drunker you could be and still safely drive.

A professional race car driver could be drunk and still in better condition to drive than my Grandmother sober.

Someone hit by your sober grandmother would likely fair better than if hit by the drunk racing driver.

Matta Harri

I'm by no means a small petite woman (what some might call 'a fine hoult of a woman') and I wouldn't trust my driving after 3 drinks. I drink a good dash socially so would have a fair tolerance bit 3 would most definatly be too much for me.

It's just not worth it. And I'm not talking just about losing your licence. If you ever have any doubts, pop into The National Rehab Hospital in Dun Laoghaire and see what may come from 'chancing it'.

Bruthal

Bruthal wrote: »

And how do you test if a person's the average male? How about testing the concentration of alcohol in the blood? Would that not tell us?

It is possible to pass the test after 3 pints. And the same "average male" can then fail the test on another occasion. Can you guess why?

American style sobriety tests are a fairer way. If you can handle your drink and you are ok to drive you will pass the test if not you are done.

BetterThanThou

I know people that can drink a liter of spirits over a night and still be pretty much sober. My mother drinks about 4 or 5 drinks when she goes out, and is clearly quite tipsy when she's done. People's alcohol tolerance can vary quite a lot, and therefore, the legal limit has to be low. The American style sobriety tests are flawed, I've given myself that type of sobriety test while totally wasted and passed. If someone really wants to have a few drinks then drive home, they should space them out and buy a breathalyzer, if they're large and space them out over a while, they may be able to drive home. But really, there's no excuse to drink and drive, if someone doesn't live within walking distance of a pub, that's their problem, and they'll have to get a taxi, or drink at home. I think the limit is fine the way it is, I've seen some lightweights tipsy after a pint.

Bruthal

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

American style sobriety tests are a fairer way. If you can handle your drink and you are ok to drive you will pass the test if not you are done.

They are a method to indicate if someone was actually drinking, more so than testing if the amount of drink you had is affecting you. They are hardly a great method either.

Even if a person can handle their drink, whatever that means, it still affects reaction times, reduces inhibitions, increases confidence, all factors which may make driving more of a risk.

Sofiztikated

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

It's not really stigmatised in rural areas. Half all the people who drink in my local would be driving home and everyone complains about guards bagging etc even people who don't drink and drive themselves.

Being from a rural area and currently living in a city I can see a big divide in opinions on the issue.

Monaghan, Cavan, Louth, Westmeath or Donegal? Own up, which one are you from?

The same clowns that give out about Gardai bagging people are the same clowns that will drive with one light out, or bald tyres, or on fill up on agri derv. They don't give a **** about anyone else on the road, as long as "I'm alright Jack, go **** yourself." They're also the same people that will go to a wake of a person killed by drink driving, then procede to have a couple of pints, and drive home themselves, not seeing the big flashing ****ing irony sign following them around.

The laws are there, the evidence is there to back it up, the statistics are there to prove it. Drink driving is moronic.

Burying your head in the sand, and saying otherwise is akin to saying that the theory of evolution and theory of gravity are just theories. You get laughed at and mocked by level headed and sane people, and rightly ****ing so.

The One Doctor

Chancer3001 wrote: »

You should be allowed take your test hammered drunk.

Pass it that drunk and you're allowed drink drive all you want

That's actually a good idea.

Sofiztikated

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Monaghan, Cavan, Louth, Westmeath or Donegal? Own up, which one are you from?

None of the above.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

You get laughed at and mocked by level headed and sane people, and rightly ****ing so

Nobody laughs at me or mocks me apart from a few random peope in AH. Most people I know or encounter (including people from other Western European countries) hold very similar opinions to myself.

Tarzana2

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

Nobody laughs at me or mocks me apart from a few random peope in AH. Most people I know or encounter (including people from other Western European countries) hold very similar opinions to myself.

I'm sure they do. :pac: How great it must be to be surrounded by yes men in every sphere of your life.

Novella

My dad is from a very rural area. I remember when we'd go to visit my grandparents as kids, my brother and I would ask, "Why is there grass growing in the middle of the road?". I've seen young teenagers driving tractors on the roads there. It is middle of nowhere territory.

Anyway, about thirty years ago, my dad was in a car with his brother and a friend in this secluded place and their car was hit by a drunk driver. My dad suffered a horrendous brain and head injury. He was lucky to survive. He was diagnosed with epilepsy shortly afterward as a result and has had many devastating seizures throughout the years, including two which broke bones in his back.

He had to retire when he was forty-nine years old and in his early fifties was diagnosed with early on-set Alzheimer's, again doctors say brought on by damage to his brain both from the accident and the resulting epilepsy.

A man decided to drive home from the pub that night after having a few drinks. He was left with a few cuts and grazes. My dad underwent multiple surgeries, battled a lifelong illness and lost his memory. He forgot his wife and his children. I did not have my father walk me down the aisle on my wedding day.

Drunk driving is unforgivable. Everywhere. In my opinion.

kravmaga

Has anyone been breathtilised at a checkpoint this xmas in Dublin.

Have not seen one checkpoint in Dublin over the xmas period so far?

UCDVet

Bruthal wrote: »

Someone hit by your sober grandmother would likely fair better than if hit by the drunk racing driver.

To clarify, I meant someone that raced professionally who had a few drinks attempting to drive home in a safe fashion; not someone who was drunk *and* racing.

Anyway, nobody can reasonably argue that alcohol doesn't make someone a worse driver. But at the same time, there is a near endless list of things that make someone a worse driver. A great driver, made worse due to some external factor is still better than an average driver under optimal conditions.

danrua01

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

Not having them is not really the solution people want.

Well tough, absolute best way too prevent drink driving. What about having joints before you drive? Or taking a few E tabs? Can't do it cos it's illegal, some people may not like that solution but no one's complaining about it.

osarusan

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

People driving after 2 or 3 pints ads not an issue. Drunk drivers are the issue and pestering and putting hardship on people having a few is simply unfair.

Yeah, the poor crayturs who get pestered when all they want to do is drink and drive are the real victims here.

UCDVet

danrua01 wrote: »

Well tough, absolute best way too prevent drink driving. What about having joints before you drive? Or taking a few E tabs? Can't do it cos it's illegal, some people may not like that solution but no one's complaining about it.

Would you apply the same logic to makeup, cellphones, and fast food?

Tarzana2

UCDVet wrote: »

Would you apply the same logic to makeup, cellphones, and fast food?

Yes.

Tarzana2

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Yes.

We should probably ban radios, passengers, crying children in particular too......

People are distracted on the roads constantly, many things people do daily are worse than the effect of a couple pints yet the same people who allow themselves be distracted go ballistic and at even the suggestion of driving after smelling a pint.

Bridge93

Drink driving is never the answer. If you have no method of getting home then tough, don't drink. It's very simple. If your '2 or 3' pints are so important to you, go live somewhere with ways of getting home other than driving. Nobody is forcing you to live in rural, isolated areas. If drinking regularly is so important to you then you have to make allowances.
Drink in your home, book a taxi, designated driver whatever. This pop in for a few idea is a pretty pathetic excuse.

I have no sympathy for drink drivers, only those on the road with them.

Venus In Furs

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

We should probably ban radios, passengers, crying children in particular too......

People are distracted on the roads constantly, many things people do daily are worse than the effect of a couple pints

Ah the auld clutching at straws for moral equivalency. Always amusing.

"I sentence you to six months' imprisonment for radio-distracted driving."

Having children/passengers in the car is usually necessary. Come on, do better.

What are the things people do daily that are worse than the effect of a couple of pints? (Note the deliberate dowplaying of three or four pints with something vague like "a couple").

Bruthal

UCDVet wrote: »

To clarify, I meant someone that raced professionally who had a few drinks attempting to drive home in a safe fashion; not someone who was drunk *and* racing.

Anyway, nobody can reasonably argue that alcohol doesn't make someone a worse driver. But at the same time, there is a near endless list of things that make someone a worse driver. A great driver, made worse due to some external factor is still better than an average driver under optimal conditions.

Yes but in the absence of roadside driver greatness tests, the overall best method is probably to have a legal alcohol level for all. The alcohol level in blood is within our own control, so that is one impairing factor we can all eliminate, even if driving incompetence for many, is not.

Zahir Thoughtless Lap

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

We should probably ban radios, passengers, crying children in particular too......

.

Yes, and the effect of all the distractions is made worse by being alcohol influenced.

Zahir Thoughtless Lap

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

Most people I know or encounter (including people from other Western European countries) hold very similar opinions to myself.

I know of a place called Kerry where peoples think it is correct to drink with driving if you live far from pubs. Are these your people?

Venus In Furs

Venus In Furs wrote: »

What are the things people do daily that are worse than the effect of a couple of pints? (Note the deliberate dowplaying of three or four pints with something vague like "a couple").

Driving while tired is a major one. It's far far more dangerous than driving after 3 pints. Yet it's done by people up and down the county every day of the week, the same people claiming someone having their few pints and driving home are a menace on the road.

I have no problem whatsoever in condemning people drunk driving. I have often seen people drive after 10 or 12 pints from my local and I think it's crazy but there is no comparison with someone having a small few pints and tipping away home. It's like doing someone for speeding for 122km/h in a 120km/h zone.

Tarzana2

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

I have no problem whatsoever in condemning people drunk driving. I have often seen people drive after 10 or 12 pints from my local and I think it's crazy but there is no comparison with someone having a small few pints and tipping away home. It's like doing someone for speeding for 122km/h in a 120km/h zone.

Once again, many people would be impaired after two or three drinks. The law needs to allow for this. For people like this, it is nothing like the bolded bit.

I have to say though, based on your posting history, I find it hard to believe you'd only ever have 2 or 3 pints when you visit a pub.

Tarzana2

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I have to say though, based on your posting history, I find it hard to believe you'd only ever have 2 or 3 pints when you visit a pub.

What I do or don't is not really relevant as its extremely rare that I would drive after more than one pint as I need my car too much and can't risk being caught, I'm arguing the whole philosophy of the thing rather than what I do myself. However yes I would often have just a small few pints. Twice in the last couple of days I have gone for 4 pints or less in between the big nights out.

Tarzana2

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

What I do or don't is not really relevant as its extremely rare that I would drive after more than one pint as I need my car too much and can't risk being caught, I'm arguing the whole philosophy of the thing rather than what I do myself. However yes I would often have just a small few pints. Twice in the last couple of days I have gone for 4 pints or less in between the big nights out.

Well, thankfully, the law doesn't agree with your "philosophy".

Haithabu

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

its extremely rare that I would drive after more than one pint as I need my car too much and can't risk being caught

This is proof enough that it's good that there are laws are in place to forbid you driving while drunk. There are enough people who would not drink and drive "because it's common sense". Obviously there are people as well who won't drink and drive "because they need their car and can't risk being caught". Glad to see you won't drive with more than one pint, whatever your motivation is.

Point taken that driving while tired is also dangerous, but I think we agree that this is not relevant and no reason to allow drink driving.

UCDVet

Zahir Thoughtless Lap wrote: »

We should probably ban radios, passengers, crying children in particular too......

People are distracted on the roads constantly, many things people do daily are worse than the effect of a couple pints yet the same people who allow themselves be distracted go ballistic and at even the suggestion of driving after smelling a pint.

The one that gets me is driving while tired. It's been shown to be as dangerous (or more so) than drink driving; but I have friends and family who will BRAG about their ability to drive while sleepy. Everyone likes to make it sound like they are hard workers or whatever.

During Christmas my Sister talked about how hard it is for her to get up at 4:30am to be at work by 5:30 (new job) and how, most days, she gets to work and doesn't remember the drive. My Dad, when he was younger, would travel long distances by car. He'd brag about driving straight through the night, without stopping.

Ironically, when I was young, I was told NEVER DRINK DRIVE. Nobody mentioned any of the other things that were bad. In uni, I'd go to a party at 8pm and drink until 2am. Nobody would let me drive home drunk at 2am (and I wouldn't want to) but I'd usually stay up until 7-8am and drive home. I'd be sober (I had a breathalyzer so I knew my BAC level) and I could legally drive. But I hadn't slept and, statistically speaking, I was just as likely to crash due to lack of sleep than had I driven home at 3am with a BAC that would make me impaired.

Drink driving is a serious crime though.
Staying up all night and driving home is not a crime at all.

Kind of messed up, but such is life.

Tarzana2

UCDVet wrote: »

The one that gets me is driving while tired. It's been shown to be as dangerous (or more so) than drink driving; but I have friends and family who will BRAG about their ability to drive while sleepy. Everyone likes to make it sound like they are hard workers or whatever.

There's no way to legislate for this though really. Doesn't mean that drink driving shouldn't be. It's measurable so can be controlled.

ProfessorPlum

Dangerous and Careless driving are crimes though. If you are so fatigued that you drive dangerously or carelessly, then you are breaking the law.
Granted, having a blood test for alcohol limits is an easy way to define weather you have broken that actual law.

Tarzana2

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Dangerous and Careless driving are crimes though. If you are so fatigued that you drive dangerously or carelessly, then you are breaking the law.

Well then, what's the problem? Causing an accident through tiredness can fall under this. I meant there's no specific way to say that's what happened. Just that the person was driving dangerously. If someone nods and then wakes up with no damage done, not a whole lot that can be done, unless of course the car was spotting moving erratically.

Lone Shark

As a non-drinker who likes the pub and night club scene, it naturally follows that I do a lot of driving at 1am-3am, since I'll usually do my best to bring home as many people as I legally can, even if they're well out of the way. And I've just come through yet another Christmas socialising season without seeing a single checkpoint.

In all, in nearly two decades of driving and probably an average of 50-100 nights out per year in that time (driving for 98% of those occasions) I've now been breathalysed once and passed four checkpoints in total in that 19 year spell. One of those four was a checkpoint set up outside Athlone because there had been a crime committed in town that night and they were looking out for someone, so I'd say if I was in that 2 or 3 pint country I'd have got away with that one.

You can talk all you like about the attitude of people in the pub, and those attitudes vary hugely. However any politician or guard on TV who talks about clamping down on this is paying it lip service, they don't enforce it and that's why it still happens. If people thought there was even a 10% chance of getting caught, they wouldn't do it. I can say definitively that the odds are far less than 1%.



In contrast, I passed two GoSafe Vans over the last few days - one on Christmas Eve and one on Christmas Day.

RoscommonTom

Lone Shark wrote: »

As a non-drinker who likes the pub and night club scene, it naturally follows that I do a lot of driving at 1am-3am, since I'll usually do my best to bring home as many people as I legally can, even if they're well out of the way. And I've just come through yet another Christmas socialising season without seeing a single checkpoint.

In all, in nearly two decades of driving and probably an average of 50-100 nights out per year in that time (driving for 98% of those occasions) I've now been breathalysed once and passed four checkpoints in total in that 19 year spell. One of those four was a checkpoint set up outside Athlone because there had been a crime committed in town that night and they were looking out for someone, so I'd say if I was in that 2 or 3 pint country I'd have got away with that one.

You can talk all you like about the attitude of people in the pub, and those attitudes vary hugely. However any politician or guard on TV who talks about clamping down on this is paying it lip service, they don't enforce it and that's why it still happens. If people thought there was even a 10% chance of getting caught, they wouldn't do it. I can say definitively that the odds are far less than 1%.



In contrast, I passed two GoSafe Vans over the last few days - one on Christmas Eve and one on Christmas Day.

True for you I never once seen a check point my whole life and I know a few fellas local what thinks nothing of driving home after a heap of pints

UCDVet

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Dangerous and Careless driving are crimes though. If you are so fatigued that you drive dangerously or carelessly, then you are breaking the law.
Granted, having a blood test for alcohol limits is an easy way to define weather you have broken that actual law.

Sure - but why treat Drink Driving differently if studies show it to be equally as dangerous?

Dangerous and Careless driving would cover bad driving as a result of alcohol, but we still have additional laws against it. You could drive *perfectly*, but if you have a BAC level that is high enough, it's a crime.

But, as far as I know, you could stay up for three days and drive 8 hours around Ireland and it's completely legal *until* the very second you drive off the road or run through a stop light.

BAC levels and impairment vary a lot from person to person and even gender (a buzzed male driver is more dangerous than a buzzed female driver, even at the same BAC level, from what I've read). And so would hours of sleep required - but we still have standards for BAC levels.

Why not standards for sleep?

Now, I will give RSA.ie credit as they do have a fatigued driving campaign http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Campaigns/Current-road-safety-campaigns/Drunk-With-Tiredness/ but I'll admit I haven't seen it.

Still, I don't see any reason why we don't have a 'You can't drive more than X hours per day or per 7 hours of sleep' or something. It's *as dangerous* as drink driving....we should set limits for it, just like we do BAC - IMHO.

And yeah, I understand that testing for it would be impossible. But that's fine. Just by having it be a crime, you'd show that it is a serious offence that is JUST as bad as drink driving.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I don't drive, so I'm not too familiar) but the EU has regulations like this for *professional* drivers, but not for less trained, regular drivers.
http://www.rsa.ie/RSA/Professional-Drivers/Driving-Safely/Driver-Hours/

That seems wrong to me. If professional drivers can't be trusted to decide when they are too tired to drive, we shouldn't let amateur drivers do it.

JP Liz V1

If you are caught drink driving, then I think you should be given a life ban from driving ever again

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

If you are caught drink driving, then I think you should be given a life ban from driving ever again

Yeah let's have completely disproportionate levels of punishment for breaking a law :rolleyes:

We have stricter punishment here as it is in comparison to many countries around the world.

Bruthal

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

If you are caught drink driving, then I think you should be given a life ban from driving ever again

And for speeding? Guillotine perhaps?

JP Liz V1

Bruthal wrote: »

And for speeding? Guillotine perhaps?

Life ban also

Nib

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

If you are caught drink driving, then I think you should be given a life ban from driving ever again

:rolleyes:

Venus In Furs

A glass of wine with a meal, or one pint is not a dangerous amount to drink before driving - generally speaking.
But three or four pints can definitely cause a level of intoxication. Four pints would have me pretty pissed.
Therefore there has to be a one-size-fits-all at some point.