Drink Driving

andekwarhola

I've been driving about 15 years here, mostly Dublin. I've been breathalyzed about 5 or 6 times but bizarrely they were all in a single year (around 6 or 7 years ago) , but never before or since.

andekwarhola

shamrock2004 wrote: »

Wha?!

The societal obloquy or egregious bellicosity shown to miscreants that overdo the imbibing of social tinctures prior to perambulating in their motor vehicle.

Burial.

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

The Gardaí need to introduce more stats in to crashes, they have improved but need more detail...

• Phone of driver, active text/call in 15 minutes pre crash
• Tyres on car, were they bald or legal
• Was the car road legal with tax, nct and insurance.
• Did the car have any defects
• How many people on the same road died in the last 10 years

It's all well and good looking at the phone but what about the decent people who actually stop to make a phonecall. How do you exclude them from this process? You can't.

foggy_lad

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What scares me is that the RSA report that in the order of 150 to 180 people a week are caught drink driving.

I've been driving back here since 2000 since in moves back from the uk, drove from 1987 to 1995. In all that time, I've been breath tested once. Had a few random stops for tax insurance etc, so perhaps if I had a few sherbets on board I could have fallen foul of the law.

Given that alcohol is a factor in 38% of road fatalities here, I think we have a massive drink driving problem.

Lies and more lies, they say that so many are caught for drink driving but the reality is that figure covers the number who are breathalysed and show a positive result who are then arrested on suspicion of DD who have to give another breath sample or a blood/urine sample and only when these are tested will the drivers be "caught"!

Also in rural areas most tests are carried out using the older breathalysers and the Gardai then have to get a blood or urine sample to prove guilt.

RSA are just another useless money-grabbing Quango

Burial.

Burial. wrote: »

It's all well and good looking at the phone but what about the decent people who actually stop to make a phonecall. How do you exclude them from this process? You can't.

The question is, was the phone in use at the time of the crash?
Even hands free are a major distraction while driving (like talking to the wife!).

Burial.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The question is, was the phone in use at the time of the crash?
Even hands free are a major distraction while driving (like talking to the wife!).

Well then that's another matter. If they can prove that then you're onto a winner. But by having a proposed window of 15 mins as stated above, it is impossible to differentiate between idiots texting in between traffic lights or while driving and those who stop to use it in the same time frame. Then again, if a crash is fatal it's more than likely the phone is completely mangled and are they going to try and recover a tiny SIM card from all the carnage? I doubt it.

Burial.

Burial. wrote: »

Well then that's another matter. If they can prove that then you're onto a winner. But by having a proposed window of 15 mins as stated above, it is impossible to differentiate between idiots texting in between traffic lights or while driving and those who stop to use it in the same time frame. Then again, if a crash is fatal it's more than likely the phone is completely mangled and are they going to try and recover a tiny SIM card from all the carnage? I doubt it.

The phone provider will have the records, no need to find the physical phone, just find the number & service provider.

Burial.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The phone provider will have the records, no need to find the physical phone, just find the number & service provider.

Never even thought of that And there I was calling people using phones while driving idiots :rolleyes:

Mountainsandh

VincePP wrote: »

They get all of these but if the person is dead they tend to respect the family as is the norm in most countries.
You do hear it sometimes when an inquest is held.

I think Australia and new Zealand are exceptions and publish if alcohol or drugs were involved.

I think this is a bit of an issue, and a serious hampering factor in preventing more accidents.

I know in France they give a lot more details in the media, and I feel this helps anchor the reality of consequences to a behaviour, ie speeding in the rain, drink driving, drug driving, breaching the rules of the road ... The exact circumstances of the accident are often described. I don't think it's a voyeuristic motive, more that it helps to understand that if you speed on a particular bend, or stretch of road, you are at risk of becoming airborne like another car previously has in this very spot.
Even a youngster will be very likely to remember that, 2 weeks ago, a speeding car went into a spin at a particular spot, and same youngster might just decide that yeah, that spot is lethal and they'll slow down there in the future.

I believe that the mystery surrounding the reports of car crashes on the news (of how exatcly crash happened) is more a disservice to road safety than transparency about crashes.

I understand the concern and care for the families, but imo most families would have no objection to details being released if it means another (perhaps young) life may be saved.

edit : to answer OP, I never drink and drive, but I did it once when put under pressure by people who wanted a lift years ago, and am horrified at doing it. Was very lucky nothing happened.

Snickers Man

I happily and unapologetically drink alcohol and drive. Frequently.

Never when over the limit though. Always within the law and so I am careful to watch my intake. Two will do.

Discodog

If the Guards are serious about reducing drink driving then why don't they put more Guards on night shifts.

Claw Hammer

Most of the fatal incidents occur in the Western counties on weekend nights. The cause is obvious. In order to socialise it is necessary for people to travel long distances. There is no adequate public transport available. Parking should be banned in the vicinity of night spots in those counties and adequate public transport should be provided. The discos should only be allowed sell tickets on busses to the venue or at a remote car park, with the car not allowed to leave the car park until the tickets are handed back.

risteard7

risteard7 wrote: »

I think mobile phone use is a much bigger problem than drink driving.

Amen.
People's ability to concentrate on the act of driving is a bigger cause of accidents, maybe not deaths but it more of a risk of causing death.
People who drink and drive don't care about killing anyone or being caught otherwise they wouldn't do it.

TheDoc

bigroad wrote: »

Look at the MAT checkpoints a joke,most people with 80 percent sight can see them a mile away and just turn off to another road.
Are these checkpoints just set up for the pr stunt,i think so.
We checked 750 drivers and got one .
I know many places they could check 10 drivers and get 8.
Its just a media stunt and nothing to do with catching drink drivers.

It's moreso a really good revenue exercise. i follow TrafficCorps on twitter and the amount of fines for Insurance, NCT and learners without L platers or accompanied drivers was mental.

There is a reason most checkpoints now have Revenue staff there, where they were never present before....

I'm not a tinfoil hat warrior, but its so blatantly obvious to me whats going on. Where I live there seems to have been a noticeable increase in the frequency of checkpoints, with customs people there all the time. I'd never seen a customs official at a checkpoint bar the last like 12 months.

2RockMountain

Discodog wrote: »

If the Guards are serious about reducing drink driving then why don't they put more Guards on night shifts.

Probably because that would mean taking more guards off day shifts where other crimes occur.

Claw Hammer

Catching drink drivers is extremely labour intensive. Preventing drink driving in the first place is far better than trying to catch offenders afterwards. At one stage there were guys not drinking all night, then when they heard there was a checkpoint took a quick slug of beer. They would register positive at the roadside and then have to be brought to a garda station. After an hour farting about they would have to be released because they were of course well under the limit. Meantime their drunk friends could drive home safe in the knowledge that the guards were busy with the suspect in the station.

Galwayguy35

I crashed the car when drunk and was bagged and put off the road for 2 years when I was 22, I've never done it again and I wake up every day thankful that I didn't hit anyone that night.

A few years after I was caught my brother was hit by a drunk driver so I've seen the damage that it does, he was ok but the guy who was drunk was legless after being in the pub all day.

2RockMountain

Snickers Man wrote: »

I happily and unapologetically drink alcohol and drive. Frequently.

Never when over the limit though. Always within the law and so I am careful to watch my intake. Two will do.

Two what?

Pro Hoc Vice

Snickers Man wrote: »

I happily and unapologetically drink alcohol and drive. Frequently.

Never when over the limit though. Always within the law and so I am careful to watch my intake. Two will do.

Deping on what you mean by 2 but 2 pints could put some people over the limit.

2RockMountain

2RockMountain wrote: »

Two what?

Two years in the slammer hopefully

jackofalltrades

murpho999 wrote: »

This week has been an awful week on Irish roads with 12 people killed. Far more than people killed by terrorists in France that people seem more worried about.

So what if people are more worried about terrorism in France.
It's the same cycle every time there's a crash in Ireland.
Significant reporting in the news, maybe RTE cover the funeral, national outpouring of grief.
And then absolutely nothing happens, until the next accident.

We rarely know what caused the crash or what might be done to prevent it happening.
If someone was driving dangerously and get prosecuted, they'll more than likely get a slap on the wrist.
There's rarely any new ideas to address these problems.
I don't believe the motorists want anymore laws or stricter enforcement.
And the government won't bring them in because they're expensive or they might lose votes.
We even have TD's advocating for people to have the right to drink drive.

There's a whole thread in the Motoring forum of people driving dangerously.
If we as a country were serious about road safety then we'd change the law and make sure the Gards went after every single on of them.

Pro Hoc Vice

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So what if people are more worried about terrorism in France.
It's the same cycle every time there's a crash in Ireland.
Significant reporting in the news, maybe RTE cover the funeral, national outpouring of grief.
And then absolutely nothing happens, until the next accident.

We rarely know what caused the crash or what might be done to prevent it happening.
If someone was driving dangerously and get prosecuted, they'll more than likely get a slap on the wrist.
There's rarely any new ideas to address these problems.
I don't believe the motorists want anymore laws or stricter enforcement.
And the government won't bring them in because they're expensive or they might lose votes.
We even have TD's advocating for people to have the right to drink drive.

There's a whole thread in the Motoring forum of people driving dangerously.
If we as a country were serious about road safety then we'd change the law and make sure the Gards went after every single on of them.

At a guess how many driving related prosecutions do you think happene every year.

JustTheOne

The message did hit home with this generation a few years ago. People would be given an earful by their friends if they dared suggest it. Like it was a shameful act.

Now it seems to be creeping back in.

Pro Hoc Vice

JustTheOne wrote: »

The message did hit home with this generation a few years ago. People would be given an earful by their friends if they dared suggest it. Like it was a shameful act.

Now it seems to be creeping back in.

No evidence to back this up other than practising in the area for a long number of years but I agree with you. It's like the current twenty somethings have no issue with it.

2RockMountain

jackofalltrades wrote: »

So what if people are more worried about terrorism in France.
It's the same cycle every time there's a crash in Ireland.
Significant reporting in the news, maybe RTE cover the funeral, national outpouring of grief.
And then absolutely nothing happens, until the next accident.

We rarely know what caused the crash or what might be done to prevent it happening.
If someone was driving dangerously and get prosecuted, they'll more than likely get a slap on the wrist.
There's rarely any new ideas to address these problems.
I don't believe the motorists want anymore laws or stricter enforcement.
And the government won't bring them in because they're expensive or they might lose votes.
We even have TD's advocating for people to have the right to drink drive.

There's a whole thread in the Motoring forum of people driving dangerously.
If we as a country were serious about road safety then we'd change the law and make sure the Gards went after every single on of them.

Actually, we have a good idea of what causes fatal collisions (not 'accidents' - rarely accidental). RSA and Gardai put a lot of time and resource into this, and use it to drive their education work.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

That's why they focus on speed, drink driving and phone use.

You're right about enforcement though, the chances of being caught speeding or breaking a red light are tiny.

Discodog

2RockMountain wrote: »

Probably because that would mean taking more guards off day shifts where other crimes occur.

What crimes predominantly happen during the day ?

Discodog

Drink drive figures here will follow the same pattern as in the UK. There will be a hardcore of drivers that continue to drink & drive. The solution is for proper penalties. So if you are just over the limit you get 9 points. If you are twice over the limit you get a 10 year ban & a little jail time.

Discodog

Discodog wrote: »

What crimes predominantly happen during the day ?

Shot in broad daylight is something we hear very often in Dublin for many years.

2RockMountain

Discodog wrote: »

What crimes predominantly happen during the day ?

The ones that cause road deaths for a start, which are predominately daytime

http://rsa.ie/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Collision-Statistics/Ireland-Road-Collisions/

cython

Canis Lupus wrote: »

You won't find many muslim drunk drivers on the roads hey.

Also drink driving is bad but people do it. Whatcha gonna do.

No, but by all accounts you don't want to be driving in a Muslim country during Ramadan - had a client in the UAE tell me that the incidence of traffic accidents there in that month spikes due to people in a rush to get home, and due to lack of focus essentially due to hypoglycaemia. Perhaps not on the level of drink-driving here, but just to note Islam has its own causes of RTAs

Claw Hammer

Discodog wrote: »

What crimes predominantly happen during the day ?

Shoplifting, mitching for example. Also courts mostly sit during the day so garda have to attend in court.

diomed

cython wrote: »

No, but by all accounts you don't want to be driving in a Muslim country during Ramadan - had a client in the UAE tell me that the incidence of traffic accidents there in that month spikes due to people in a rush to get home, and due to lack of focus essentially due to hypoglycaemia. Perhaps not on the level of drink-driving here, but just to note Islam has its own causes of RTAs

When I moved to Africa for two years in the late 1970s I was told to be very careful at mid-day on Fridays. The Muslims would be speeding to prayers without much regards for other road users.

jackofalltrades

2RockMountain wrote: »

Actually, we have a good idea of what causes fatal collisions (not 'accidents' - rarely accidental). RSA and Gardai put a lot of time and resource into this, and use it to drive their education work.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Road-Safety/Our-Research/Deaths-injuries-on-Irish-roads/

That's why they focus on speed, drink driving and phone use.

Oh I know the accidents are investigated, it's just the results of these investigations are rarely reported to us.
Crashes are usually only ever reported on in an emotional context.
It would be great if they went, "remember that collision on the news last week/month. Yeah that was caused by someone misjudging an overtaking maneuver and having a head on collision".
Or "the driver went around the bend too fast and left the road".

You're right about enforcement though, the chances of being caught speeding or breaking a red light are tiny.

In one 2 hour journey recently I passed 3 speed traps.
It wouldn't be unusual for me to pass 3/4 a week.
It's completely disproportionately policed compared to other offences.

pablo128

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Oh I know the accidents are investigated, it's just the results of these investigations are rarely reported to us.
Crashes are usually only ever reported on in an emotional context.
It would be great if they went, "remember that collision on the news last week/month. Yeah that was caused by someone misjudging an overtaking maneuver and having a head on collision".
Or "the driver went around the bend too fast and left the road".

In one 2 hour journey recently I passed 3 speed traps.
It wouldn't be unusual for me to pass 3/4 a week.
It's completely disproportionately policed compared to other offences.

Could I hazard a guess that you drive around the South East of the country? I've done a load of different van runs around Ireland covering the drivers in work, and the Wexford run by far has the highest amount of camera vans.

2RockMountain

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Oh I know the accidents are investigated, it's just the results of these investigations are rarely reported to us.
Crashes are usually only ever reported on in an emotional context.
It would be great if they went, "remember that collision on the news last week/month. Yeah that was caused by someone misjudging an overtaking maneuver and having a head on collision".
Or "the driver went around the bend too fast and left the road".

Something like these reports?

http://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?q=coroner%27s%20inquest%20collision

sdanseo

Pinch Flat wrote: »

What scares me is that the RSA report that in the order of 150 to 180 people a week are caught drink driving.

I've been driving back here since 2000 since in moves back from the uk, drove from 1987 to 1995. In all that time, I've been breath tested once. Had a few random stops for tax insurance etc, so perhaps if I had a few sherbets on board I could have fallen foul of the law.

Given that alcohol is a factor in 38% of road fatalities here, I think we have a massive drink driving problem.

I agree - they need to massively expand the MAT checkpoints. I've been through a few tax and insurance CPs lately but there was a good stretch of a year or more where I barely saw a Garda car.

I haven't been breathalysed since 2011 or so (think I was tested 3 times in 2 years before that to be fair) and in that time have driven maybe 75,000 to 100,000km mostly around Dublin.

jackofalltrades

pablo128 wrote: »

Could I hazard a guess that you drive around the South East of the country? I've done a load of different van runs around Ireland covering the drivers in work, and the Wexford run by far has the highest amount of camera vans.

Good guess.
I'm glad other people see the amount of vans as being high compared to the rest of the country.

jackofalltrades

2RockMountain wrote: »

Something like these reports?

http://www.irishtimes.com/search/search-7.1213540?q=coroner%27s%20inquest%20collision

Yes, but closer to the time when the event is still fresh in peoples mind.
Which I know probably can't be done for various reasons.

FrStone

jackofalltrades wrote: »

If we as a country were serious about road safety then we'd change the law and make sure the Gards went after every single on of them.

We do take it very seriously. We are quite successful at preventing Road traffic deaths. Just look at the states, where drink driving is way more prevalent and punishment is not as severe. Our road deaths per capita are actually quite low, despite what the rsa like us to believe.

petrolcan

Discodog wrote: »

Drink drive figures here will follow the same pattern as in the UK. There will be a hardcore of drivers that continue to drink & drive. The solution is for proper penalties. So if you are just over the limit you get 9 points. If you are twice over the limit you get a 10 year ban & a little jail time.

The punishment for DD in the UK is a one year ban. Twice in ten years gets you a three year ban.

jackofalltrades

FrStone wrote: »

We do take it very seriously. We are quite successful at preventing Road traffic deaths.
Just look at the states, where drink driving is way more prevalent and punishment is not as severe. Our road deaths per capita are actually quite low, despite what the rsa like us to believe.

Then why isn't the law changed so the the Gardí can go after motorists breaking the law in dashcam footage thread, without the dashcam owner first having to make a complaint?

Claw Hammer

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Then why isn't the law changed so the the Gardí can go after motorists breaking the law in dashcam footage thread, without the dashcam owner first having to make a complaint?

The Guards can pursue any motorist breaking the law in dashcam footage thread. The problem is that aspects of the evidence need to be proved by the person who made the recording. In particular, the location is crucial. There is also the possibility of hoax clips sending the guards on wild goose chases.

kupus

Speed kills blah blah blah
Drink driving kills blah blah blah
Phone while driving kills blah blah blah.
Bald tires
Changing radios


All fooking waffle as I see it.

Start building proper roads and you will find the death rate drop.

But this costs too much so the gov and their rsa mouthpiece bleat on about every other excuse they can to take people's focus away that the roads are indeed Sh1te.

Pro Hoc Vice

kupus wrote: »

Speed kills blah blah blah
Drink driving kills blah blah blah
Phone while driving kills blah blah blah.
Bald tires
Changing radios


All fooking waffle as I see it.

Start building proper roads and you will find the death rate drop.

But this costs too much so the gov and their rsa mouthpiece bleat on about every other excuse they can to take people's focus away that the roads are indeed Sh1te.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/road-traffic-accidents/by-country/

We come number 161 out of 172 we are in the top 10 safest countries in the world.

Pinch Flat

kupus wrote: »

Speed kills blah blah blah
Drink driving kills blah blah blah
Phone while driving kills blah blah blah.
Bald tires
Changing radios


All fooking waffle as I see it.

Start building proper roads and you will find the death rate drop.

But this costs too much so the gov and their rsa mouthpiece bleat on about every other excuse they can to take people's focus away that the roads are indeed Sh1te.

Really? any evidence for this. Don't get me wrong - some of our roads are in a shocking condition, with poor surfacing, drainage and alignment. But people still insist on driving on these at completely inappropriate speeds. That (excessive speed) and alcohol make up about 70% of the factors in road fatalities.

Why can't people just accept that speeding and boozed up drivers cause major problems on our roads?

Thoie

I'm always taken aback by the attitude of "sure, you're unlikely to run into a checkpoint, you could risk it", as if the only reason not to drink and drive is penalty points.

I'm big enough that I could drink about 4 vodkas in an hour and still be technically under the limit (of 50mg per 100ml of blood) based on http://www.rupissed.com/

I won't even have one drink and drive, not because I'm worried about a checkpoint, but because if anything ever happened I would spend the rest of my life wondering "could I have avoided that if I didn't have a drink"?

Growing up, the nearest disco was 15 miles away. Parents either took it in turns to drop us off or pick us up, and as we got a little older, we'd take it in turns to be the driver. The done thing in our group was that everyone else bought the driver soft drinks all night and paid for their entrance. We didn't leave the car park until everyone had their seatbelt on. To this day I still ask if everyone is belted up before taking off.

I'm finding that people a few years younger than me are far more laissez-faire about drinking and driving. Recently I was faced with a social event that would cost €50 in taxis each way, so I decided to drive. The number of people who said "you won't be driving for ages, have a few drinks" surprised me. It's a bit the same with HIV - growing up the safe sex message was hammered home to us, because at the time AIDS was a death sentence. People a few years younger than me didn't get that message, and seem to have a far more lax attitude to safe sex. Combined with improvements in treatment, they don't seem to see HIV as such a big deal.

Shenshen

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Really? any evidence for this. Don't get me wrong - some of our roads are in a shocking condition, with poor surfacing, drainage and alignment. But people still insist on driving on these at completely inappropriate speeds. That (excessive speed) and alcohol make up about 70% of the factors in road fatalities.

Why can't people just accept that speeding and boozed up drivers cause major problems on our roads?

Well, to some extend you can blame whoever sets speed limits, too.
I don't live too far from a small, narrow, windy road that has grass growing down the middle, but the speed limit is 80.

I often wonder is many speed limits are meant to be understood as a dare?

Oymyakon

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, to some extend you can blame whoever sets speed limits, too.
I don't live too far from a small, narrow, windy road that has grass growing down the middle, but the speed limit is 80.

I often wonder is many speed limits are meant to be understood as a dare?

It's a 'limit', not a target.

Pinch Flat

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, to some extend you can blame whoever sets speed limits, too.
I don't live too far from a small, narrow, windy road that has grass growing down the middle, but the speed limit is 80.

I often wonder is many speed limits are meant to be understood as a dare?

I agree that a lot of speed limits on rural roads require a review - but they are a limiot, not a target. People still need to drive to the prevailing road conditions, layout, visibility etc.

Many a country road I've driven on, marked with a 80 kph limit, and you'll be lucky to do 60 kph. Who knows what you might meet? A farmer herding cattle, someone on horseback a tractor or a group of cyclists.

On better roads, I maintain it's impossible to drive at the speed limit anyway without being overtaken - there's an overtaking gene in a lot of Irish drivers that makes it impossible for them to just sit behind car doing 100kph on a road with this limit.

Jayop

The biggest reason for drink driving where I live is that there's not a single taxi to be had at night. It's a smallish village with about 7/8 pubs and there used to be 3 or 4 taxis at the weekend, but now there's only 1 still doing it and you'd have to be blessed to be able to get him so loads of people take the car home even if they didn't plan to when they came out.