Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New Drink Driving rules???

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Anyone who enjoys a few drinks should buy a breathalyser now

    You would never drink and drive but with these new rules a lot of people are going to loose their licences the next day

    Only 12 quid worth the investment


  • Options
    #93
    4ensic15
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,691 ✭✭✭4ensic15


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    Anyone who enjoys a few drinks should buy a breathalyser now

    You would never drink and drive but with these new rules a lot of people are going to loose their licences the next day

    Only 12 quid worth the investment

    Those things are no panacea. Blood alcohol levels vary, those things need to be maintained carefully or they are useless. Better to spend the €12 on a taxi. The cheapest legal team you will ever use.


  • Options
    #94
    HappyAsLarE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭HappyAsLarE


    Someone who becomes a danger on the road after 2/3 pints is likely a danger without any drink taken.

    How the hell can your driving ability be so bad that it falls off a cliff after a couple.

    Edit: before I get attacked - I have never touched a drop and drove. Not because I think it would be dangerous, but because I don’t want to lose my licence.


  • Options
    #95
    kirving
    Registered Users Posts: 5,969 ✭✭✭kirving


    I have no issues with trying to limit the amount of drink driving, but this is another half arsed attempt to make the RSA look like they're doing something.

    The reality is that in the US, you can fly a 747 with 0.04%, while in Ireland you get banned from driving at 0.05%. It's effectively the same number when you consider all of the other variables in play.

    I'd say the FAA have done far more scientific analysis than the RSA in determining what is a safe level of alcohol.

    I'm all for regulating it, but do it based off facts and data, rather than a politicians attempt to gain some publicity ahead of a rumoured potential FG snap election.

    Road deaths have been steadily reducing in this country due to the roll out of a world class motorway network, and PCP finance deal enticing people into buying new cars.

    Take a look at this map (which they haven't managed to update in three years, why?), the total number of collisions bounces around, but doesn't show a clear reduction at all. So collisions are happening, but outcomes are better.

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


  • Options
    #96
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    HappyAsLarE wrote: »
    Someone who becomes a danger on the road after 2/3 pints is likely a danger without any drink taken.

    How the hell can your driving ability be so bad that it falls off a cliff after a couple.

    Edit: before I get attacked - I have never touched a drop and drove. Not because I think it would be dangerous, but because I don’t want to lose my licence.

    It is dangerous. And it is an attitude like yours that is behind 2 out of every 5 fatal collisions. Because 2 out of every 5 fatal collisoons involve alcohol. A single drink triples your risk of being involved in a fatal collision. Some people, especially the young and small bodied people, increase their risk even more than that after one drink. If a person is going to be in charge of a ton of metal in the public space where they may encounter other people going about their business then the very least they could do is have the respect for their fellow person to be wholly capable and physically able to control the vehicle, to be drink and drug free, to wear glasses if they need them, to not be on the phone , to not speed or drive dangerously, etc. Anything else is potentially fatal contempt.

    Drink all you want, or need. It's your own business. But if you go out onto the public road, your alcohol level should be zero, because at that point it is other people's business too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    murpho999
    Registered Users Posts: 28,467 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    HappyAsLarE wrote: »
    Someone who becomes a danger on the road after 2/3 pints is likely a danger without any drink taken.

    How the hell can your driving ability be so bad that it falls off a cliff after a couple.

    Edit: before I get attacked - I have never touched a drop and drove. Not because I think it would be dangerous, but because I don’t want to lose my licence.

    This is a very poor argument.

    Alcohol effects depend on different circumstances, food taken, body mass, etc but there is no way you can say that somebody is unaffected by 2-3 drinks.

    You may feel yourself that you’re fine after 2-3 drinks and in control and maybe you are but I would be certain that your reaction times are slower and that would be the difference between being involved in an incident or not.

    Also, I’m sure you know people who would be drunk quicker than others and lawmakers have to make laws for all of society and not just a select few.


  • Options
    #98
    kerryjack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,558 ✭✭✭kerryjack


    How many of us went in with the intention of having 2 pints and ended up having 4 so better not have any in my opinion so its Heineken 00 for me and would be great if it could be on tap. Its not the 3 months off the road its the hassle of trying to get insurance after. They would ride you.


  • Options
    #99
    HappyAsLarE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭HappyAsLarE


    Zorya wrote: »
    It is dangerous. And it is an attitude like yours that is behind 2 out of every 5 fatal collisions. Because 2 out of every 5 fatal collisoons involve alcohol. A single drink triples your risk of being involved in a fatal collision. Some people, especially the young and small bodied people, increase their risk even more than that after one drink. If a person is going to be in charge of a ton of metal in the public space where they may encounter other people going about their business then the very least they could do is have the respect for their fellow person to be wholly capable and physically able to control the vehicle, to be drink and drug free, to wear glasses if they need them, to not be on the phone , to not speed or drive dangerously, etc. Anything else is potentially fatal contempt.

    Drink all you want, or need. It's your own business. But if you go out onto the public road, your alcohol level should be zero, because at that point it is other people's business too.

    Causation vs correlation. A classic case.


  • Options
    #100
    HappyAsLarE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭HappyAsLarE


    murpho999 wrote: »
    This is a very poor argument.

    Alcohol effects depend on different circumstances, food taken, body mass, etc but there is no way you can say that somebody is unaffected by 2-3 drinks.

    You may feel yourself that you’re fine after 2-3 drinks and in control and maybe you are but I would be certain that your reaction times are slower and that would be the difference between being involved in an incident or not.

    Also, I’m sure you know people who would be drunk quicker than others and lawmakers have to make laws for all of society and not just a select few.

    What is my argument? I am not advocating drink driving. I am saying that those who can’t handle a couple of pints are crap drivers to begin with. Reactions of a sloth.


  • Options
    #101
    murpho999
    Registered Users Posts: 28,467 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    HappyAsLarE wrote: »
    What is my argument? I am not advocating drink driving. I am saying that those who can’t handle a couple of pints are crap drivers to begin with. Reactions of a sloth.

    You’re stating or implying that poor drinkers are poor drivers and therefore those that can handle a few pints are better drivers.

    It’s a ridiculous point you’re making and you don’t seem to accept that a couple of pints do affect reactions.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    HappyAsLarE
    Closed Accounts Posts: 771 ✭✭✭HappyAsLarE


    murpho999 wrote: »
    You’re stating or implying that poor drinkers are poor drivers and therefore those that can handle a few pints are better drivers.

    It’s a ridiculous point you’re making and you don’t seem to accept that a couple of pints do affect reactions.

    Nope. I am saying the real problem is poor driving ability. A couple of pints do affect reactions. That is something that can be proven scientifically.

    Here is a prediction: this new law won’t lower road deaths.


  • Options
    #103
    jmayo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,186 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If it discourages a moronic practice, then all the better.

    A moronic practice of having A pint ?

    This will not stop the gimp who goes out and has 5 pints and half a bottle of vodka, a few lines of something and then drives his mates to the local disco ala Colin McRae.
    Andy From Sligo wrote: »
    I think shane ross had said in the past when he was discussing about all this that he wanted a total drink, no drive at all scenario but it was met with so much opposition from .. er his opponents in the Dail - but it does seem thats the direction its heading to.

    one FF TD down our way wants to see it relaxed in rural areas thinking it should be one or 2 drinks (maybe he is citing pints?) and still allowed to drive

    Unworkable because if you partook of that sherry trifle at your meal you could technically end up being over the zero limit.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Long overdue. Drunk drivers have ruined more than enough lives and families in Ireland.

    A bit like the crowd you are fond of apologising for round these parts. :rolleyes:

    For all the cr** and jokes thrown at Healy -raes one of them asked a question that AFAIK the great Lord Ross and the civil servants could not answer.
    "what percentage of accidents are caused by people with between 50 and 80mg of alcohol" ?

    All we ever hear is there was an accident and someone was fond to be above the limit.
    Now AFAIK that could actually be the person who was not at fault for the accident in the first place or the person could be at 200mg.
    Given our AGS we can't believe half the stats anyway.

    And yes we all know that some feckers with the likes of 5 pints, 10 vodkas and red bulls have caused a lot of fatal accidents, but there is a myth out there that anyone with a couple of pints is crashing and killing all round them.

    FFS if that was the case there would be no one living in rural Ireland as they would have killed each other off years ago.

    Anyway this is just more of the usual semantics and optics.
    The minister, the government and the associated quango want to be seen to be doing something.

    Well the something is more patrols, more checks especially at night, but that costs money and resources.
    Nah it's easier to just enact another law.

    And another part of it would be to reform the AGS so that they do the checks they say they are doing and they don't get to scratch inconvenient results belonging to their mates and relatives.
    In other words a proper planned, managed and functioning police force.

    But again that would cost money and somebody actually coming up with a proper thought out plan.

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Options
    #104
    oceanman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭oceanman


    kerryjack wrote: »
    How many of us went in with the intention of having 2 pints and ended up having 4 so better not have any in my opinion so its Heineken 00 for me and would be great if it could be on tap. Its not the 3 months off the road its the hassle of trying to get insurance after. They would ride you.
    the new law wont a blind bit of difference to peoples behaviour, you have more chance of being hit by a bus than meeting a checkpoint..


  • Options
    #105
    Jameswhalley
    Closed Accounts Posts: 112 ✭✭Jameswhalley


    oceanman wrote: »
    the new law wont a blind bit of difference to peoples behaviour, you have more chance of being hit by a bus than meeting a checkpoint..

    The could clear most of themm off the road by targeting regulars in pub car parks

    They don't bother

    I know of regulars that drive home after ten pints


  • Options
    #106
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,715 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Zorya wrote: »
    It is dangerous. And it is an attitude like yours that is behind 2 out of every 5 fatal collisions. Because 2 out of every 5 fatal collisoons involve alcohol..

    This is typical of the massaging of statistics that goes on (not just on this topic). Throw out a few stats and word things to suit your agenda and you make things really turn in your favour.

    To begin with that figure includes collisions where it was pedestrians and cyclists who had consumed alcohol so that knocks 9% of pedestrians and as no figures are given for cyclists let’s just say pedestrians and cyclists are 10% (1% definitely being an under estimate for cyclists). So that brings it down to approx 1.5/5 straight away.

    Now they may state “contributes” in the headline but if you actually read the stats it really means, had consumed but that does not mean contributed to, far from it. There is no doubt imo that in many cases it was the other driver that caused the collision. You can also be sure than many of the 1.5/5 who actually caused the collision where far in excess of even the old 80mg limit.

    In other words I would be confident that a proper thorough investigation not biased towards finding the result people want to hear would find that people having consumed up to 80mg of alcohol (about 2 pints for most average men, possiblly even 3 depending on different factors) are involved in very very small numbers of fatal collisions and even of those that the alcohol made no difference it was just an accident that would have occurred regardless.


Advertisement