Shane Ross considering letting drink drivers drive to work..

swarlb

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I read he would consider any proposal as he would consider the proposal. He hasn't said no.

He hasn't actually said anything... which is what most professional politicians do.... and the reason they become professional and earn the 'big bucks' is because people who vote for them usually listen to what it is they didn't say.

Discodog

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps the driver should consider the effect on their family and home and not drive while over the limit.
Priorities and all that.

Mad idea I know.

The UK found that a hard core of drivers ignore the law & take a chance. People do make mistakes & it is possible to be over the limit when you had no intention of being so.

Law needs to be proportionate otherwise people ignore it.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

I’ve a 200km round trip to get to work, do you know what I don’t do when I’ve work in the morning?

I don’t drink so much that I’d be over the limit in the morning.

Your job shouldn’t be infringing on your life. While should I have to stay off the beer if I’ve work in the morning? Basically means work is impacting your time off.

Morning bagging is an disgrace imo, our limits are too low also. The limits should be set so the average man can have his 3 pints and drive home, it’s the lads with 14 pints driving home that’s the problem and no laws will stop them.

brightspark

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Your job shouldn’t be infringing on your life. While should I have to stay off the beer if I’ve work in the morning? Basically means work is impacting your time off.

Morning bagging is an disgrace imo, our limits are too low also. The limits should be set so the average man can have his 3 pints and drive home, it’s the lads with 14 pints driving home that’s the problem and no laws will stop them.

If you think 3 pints doesn't affect you then why bother drinking?? You might as well drink water. But the fact is it does have an effect and that effect is proven to be detrimental to driving.

It's no safer to drive under the influence in the morning than it is after a lunch time or post work pint! So why have a different limit in the morning?

elperello

Different forms of limited licences for offenders are common in the US.
This link is to how it works in Missouri.

https://dor.mo.gov/drivers/ldp.php

amcalester

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Your job shouldn’t be infringing on your life. While should I have to stay off the beer if I’ve work in the morning? Basically means work is impacting your time off.

Morning bagging is an disgrace imo, our limits are too low also. The limits should be set so the average man can have his 3 pints and drive home, it’s the lads with 14 pints driving home that’s the problem and no laws will stop them.

You don’t, you can drink as much as you want and go to work in the morning and no one other than your boss and possibly co-workers should care.

Just don’t drive if you’re over the limit.

bazz26

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Your job shouldn’t be infringing on your life. While should I have to stay off the beer if I’ve work in the morning? Basically means work is impacting your time off.

Morning bagging is an disgrace imo, our limits are too low also. The limits should be set so the average man can have his 3 pints and drive home, it’s the lads with 14 pints driving home that’s the problem and no laws will stop them.

Sorry but to me if you still have enough alcohol in your system to fail a roadside breath test the next morning you have work, then it suggests that its not work that's impacting your time off. That's even taken into account that you had a generous 8 hours sleep between going home from the pub and getting up the next morning for work, for a "few" pints to exit your system.

elperello

bazz26 wrote: »

Sorry but to me if you still have enough alcohol in your system to fail a roadside breath test the next morning you have work, then it suggests that its not work that's impacting your time off. That's even taken into account that you had a generous 8 hours sleep between going home from the pub and getting up the next morning for work, for a "few" pints to exit your system.

Quite a low threshold can cause one to fail the roadside breath test. It is the blood/urine test which determines your fitness to drive and will lead to prosecution.

Failing a breath test at low levels and subsequently "passing" the blood/urine test will not normally leave a person incapable of either working or driving.

Hours since last drink, sleep, meals consumed and the general health and metabolism of the driver are all factors. It is therefore better to err on the side of caution before getting behind the wheel.

brightspark

brightspark wrote: »

If you think 3 pints doesn't affect you then why bother drinking?? You might as well drink water. But the fact is it does have an effect and that effect is proven to be detrimental to driving.

It's no safer to drive under the influence in the morning than it is after a lunch time or post work pint! So why have a different limit in the morning?

If you can’t manage to drive after 3 pints you aren’t able to drive in the first place imo. I’ve driven much harder to handle machines than cars after more than 3 pints without difficulty (private land before any accusations are made).

amcalester wrote: »

You don’t, you can drink as much as you want and go to work in the morning and no one other than your boss and possibly co-workers should care.

Just don’t drive if you’re over the limit.

Many people have no option but to drive. Bagging in the morning is new thing none of us gave a second thought to driving the next day up until a few years ago and how often did you hear of any crashes related to drink in the morning? I’ve heard of none anyway.

amcalester

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Many people have no option but to drive.

Me included, still doesn’t mean they should be allowed drive while over the limit.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

Me included, still doesn’t mean they should be allowed drive while over the limit.

The issue is the limit is too low.

brightspark

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

If you can’t manage to drive after 3 pints you aren’t able to drive in the first place imo. I’ve driven much harder to handle machines than cars after more than 3 pints without difficulty (private land before any accusations are made).

You still don't get it...if you are unaffected by the alcohol then why drink it?
BUT you are. I don't drink decaffeinated coffee as without the caffeine there isn't much point. People drink alcohol because it has an affect on them, nothing wrong with that, but to claim it has no effect on your driving ability is senseless.

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Many people have no option but to drive.

The always have the option of not drinking, despite rumours to the contrary it isn't compulsory.

pablo128

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

If you can’t manage to drive after 3 pints you aren’t able to drive in the first place imo. I’ve driven much harder to handle machines than cars after more than 3 pints without difficulty (private land before any accusations are made.

Now come on. Driving a digger in a field is vastly different to driving a car capable of 180 kmh ( which most cars are capable of) on a public road with other members of the public about.

How is it that pub car parks are always full at the weekends? People obviously plan to drive home after a nights drinking. Nothing but scum if I'm honest, risking mowing down their own neighbours on the way home.

brightspark

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Bagging in the morning is new thing none of us gave a second thought to driving the next day up until a few years ago and how often did you hear of any crashes related to drink in the morning? I’ve heard of none anyway.

I've never seen a tornado, doesn't mean they don't exist. Crashes do happen in the mornings.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/christmas-drink-driving-campaign-aimed-at-morning-after-drivers-1.3715130

Some 11 per cent of fatal collisions in which a driver had consumed alcohol took place between 7am and 11am, according to Garda and Road Safety Authority figures for this year which were released on Thursday

elperello

brightspark wrote: »

You still don't get it...if you are unaffected by the alcohol then why drink it?
BUT you are. I don't drink decaffeinated coffee as without the caffeine there isn't much point. People drink alcohol because it has an affect on them, nothing wrong with that, but to claim it has no effect on your driving ability is senseless.

The always have the option of not drinking, despite rumours to the contrary it isn't compulsory.

Many of us drink whiskey, beer, wine etc. for the enjoyment of taste not for any mind altering sensation.

It is possible to enjoy a few glasses of wine as an accompaniment to a meal without any undesirable effect on either your mood or those in your company.

Of course not drinking is the sensible option in many circumstances.

Seth Brundle

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

If you can’t manage to drive after 3 pints you aren’t able to drive in the first place imo. I’ve driven much harder to handle machines than cars after more than 3 pints without difficulty (private land before any accusations are made).

Many people have no option but to drive. Bagging in the morning is new thing none of us gave a second thought to driving the next day up until a few years ago and how often did you hear of any crashes related to drink in the morning? I’ve heard of none anyway.

People are involved in incidents every day without alcohol being a factor.
Do you really think allowing people to drive whilst having alcohol in their system would not have a negative effect?
As for hearing about crashes in the morning involving alcohol, you don't hear because incidents where alcohol is a factor tend not to be broadcast e.g. is there a media article that shows how many were incidents there were during 2018 that involved alcohol?

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

The issue is the limit is too low.

Too low for what?
The science says that alcohol is a bad thing if you're going to be driving.
What evidence have you that this fact is inaccurate?

brightspark

elperello wrote: »

Many of us drink whiskey, beer, wine etc. for the enjoyment of taste not for any mind altering sensation.

It is possible to enjoy a few glasses of wine as an accompaniment to a meal without any undesirable effect on either your mood or those in your company.

Of course not drinking is the sensible option in many circumstances.

A couple of glasses of wine, with a meal followed by a full nights sleep is highly unlikely to leave anyone over the limit the next morning.

I would think that you would probably have had to been drinking either excessively late or to excess to still be over the limit the next morning..if you get a full nights sleep..i.e you haven't staggered home at 2am and leaving for work at 6!

Guy:Incognito

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

Morning bagging is an disgrace imo, .

What's the difference between having 3 pints and driving from the pub and being x over the limit or having 10 pints driving in the morning and being the same amount 9ver the limit?

Science says reaction times are slowing with alcohol. But sure, your feeling is probably better evidence.

Plenty of near misses would be crashes with a slightly slower reaction time.

CrankyHaus

brightspark wrote: »

I've never seen a tornado, doesn't mean they don't exist. Crashes do happen in the mornings.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/christmas-drink-driving-campaign-aimed-at-morning-after-drivers-1.3715130

So 11% of fatal collisions take place from 7am to 11am? That means the amount of fatal collisions at that time are disproportionately low, hardly an argument that we need increased road safety policing at that time.

brightspark

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So 11% of fatal collisions take place from 7am to 11am? That means the amount of fatal collisions at that time are disproportionately low, hardly an argument that we need increased road safety policing at that time.

Read it again,

Some 11 per cent of fatal collisions in which a driver had consumed alcohol took place between 7am and 11am, according to Garda and Road Safety Authority figures for this year which were released on Thursday

It doesn't say 11% of fatal collisions occur between 7&11am.

martyc5674

CrankyHaus wrote: »

So 11% of fatal collisions take place from 7am to 11am? That means the amount of fatal collisions at that time are disproportionately low, hardly an argument that we need increased road safety policing at that time.

Not necessarily, you’d need to see the rest of the data, maybe 40% are between midnight and 4am. Leaving only 60% to be distributed across the remaining 20 hours.(in which case 11% may appear high)
It’s easy dress up stats to paint any picture you want.
Look straight past it.
The reality is we are a nation with a poor relationship with alcohol, and a shur it will be grand attitude in relation to safe driving.

newmember2

It's snowing...

LuasSimon

The guards seem to channel 90% of their resources at motorists .
Any chance they might catch more burglars or drug dealers who are destroying communities all over the country ?

Seth Brundle

LuasSimon wrote: »

The guards seem to channel 90% of their resources at motorists .
Any chance they might catch more burglars or drug dealers who are destroying communities all over the country ?

That's a fairly wild claim!
How do you know what the gardai are doing at any one time?
Or is it because the few interactions you have with them is when you see them on the road?

touts

You don't have to drink alcohol in the pub. If you need to be ****faced to talk to your "friends" in the pub then they probably aren't your friends. If you want to drive and go to the pub that is 100% fine. Just drink coke while in the pub. If you drink
alcohol and then drive and get caught you are too dangerous to be trusted to drive.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Plenty of near misses would be crashes with a slightly slower reaction time.

So should we ban people from driving who have slow reaction times? Plenty of people would have faster reaction times after a few pints than other people sober.

If you watch them programs on tv where they do tests on people after a few drinks they are a total set up, fake as could be. Lads not able to park a car after 2 pints, total nonsense.

brightspark wrote: »

Read it again,



It doesn't say 11% of fatal collisions occur between 7&11am.

The driver having consumed alcohol does now equal alcohol was to blame either which is a very important detail that’s glossed over in these statements.

Seth Brundle

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

So should we ban people from driving who have slow reaction times? Plenty of people would have faster reaction times after a few pints than other people sober.

If you watch them programs on tv where they do tests on people after a few drinks they are a total set up, fake as could be. Lads not able to park a car after 2 pints, total nonsense.



The driver having consumed alcohol does now equal alcohol was to blame either which is a very important detail that’s glossed over in these statements.

Would you stop with the pseudoscience nonsense?
Alcohol is a depressant and can reduce reaction times, affect vision and also impair reasoning and information processing. This is all proven many times over.

pablo128

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

So should we ban people from driving who have slow reaction times? Plenty of people would have faster reaction times after a few pints than other people sober.

If you watch them programs on tv where they do tests on people after a few drinks they are a total set up, fake as could be. Lads not able to park a car after 2 pints, total nonsense.



The driver having consumed alcohol does now equal alcohol was to blame either which is a very important detail that’s glossed over in these statements.

Tell you what. You carry on drink driving, and if you get stopped you can explain the above to a judge. I've no doubt he will take you at your word and send you on your way.

paw patrol

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What other laws shouldnt apply to certain people based on the possibility of them losing their jobs?


Isnt it up to the person to make sure they dont break the law and cause themselves hardship?

I don't disagree with you.
Drink driving comes with a unique sentence - which can prevent you keeping or getting a job - without being locked up.

of course there are degrees of crimes ,

I don't see why a fellow slightly over the limit the next morning after leaving his local at closing time should lose his job but I think a fellow who drives home from the niteclub at 4am after 8 hours on the lash should be jailed.

one is a minor infraction possibly due to negligence and the latter is blatant f8cking with no regard for others.

Seth Brundle

paw patrol wrote: »

I don't disagree with you.
Drink driving comes with a unique sentence - which can prevent you keeping or getting a job - without being locked up.

of course there are degrees of crimes ,

I don't see why a fellow slightly over the limit the next morning after leaving his local at closing time should lose his job but I think a fellow who drives home from the niteclub at 4am after 8 hours on the lash should be jailed.

one is a minor infraction possibly due to negligence and the latter is blatant f8cking with no regard for others.

Someone who is over the limit the following morning (who left at closing time) had drank a fair few drinks for the alcohol to still be in their system).
If the job is that important then don't drink (or at least not as much) if they're going to drive the following morning.
Comparing them to the ignorant prick who has a skinful and drives is irrelevant to the conversation.

brightspark

paw patrol wrote: »

I don't disagree with you.
Drink driving comes with a unique sentence - which can prevent you keeping or getting a job - without being locked up.

Drink driving can also result in the injury, disability and death of innocent people. resulting in them loosing their income, independence and life and those of their families. Much worse than loosing any job.

Isambard

how will drink drivers fare for insurance to drive to work? (I expect someone already said that...I didn't read all 6 pages....)

paw patrol

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Someone who is over the limit the following morning (who left at closing time) had drank a fair few border for the alcohol to still be in their system).
If the job is that important then don't drink (or at least not as much) if they're going to drive the following morning.
Comparing them to the ignorant prick who has a skinful and drives is irrelevant to the conversation.

only irrelevant if you believe in absolute interpretation of the law. If (like me) you believe in context or mitigating factors then it's not irrelevant.

I've nowhere agreed with drink driving...however I don't believe that some people should lose their income over it unless it's a serious offence.
If it's that serious then they should do a sentence inside.

You can disagree and that's fine.

vandriver

Isambard wrote: »

how will drink drivers fare for insurance to drive to work? (I expect someone already said that...I didn't read all 6 pages....)

Badly,I suspect

TheChizler

paw patrol wrote: »

one is a minor infraction possibly due to negligence and the latter is blatant f8cking with no regard for others.

Why shouldn't we punish both the person with no regard to others due to negligence and the one with blatant lack of regard to others? Both are more likely to kill other people through their own negligence.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

What's the difference between having 3 pints and driving from the pub and being x over the limit or having 10 pints driving in the morning and being the same amount 9ver the limit?

There is a massive difference imo, you have had a nights sleep and are in a totally different frame of mind in the morning than at night.

As I said, maybe about 4 or 5 years ago the “morning after” started to be talked about. Before that nobody even thought about driving the next morning after a night out, it didn’t even enter the equation.

I remember in college being on massive seasons till 4 or 5 in the morning, sleep on a floor and out the door at 8:30am drive to work in my part time job and drive various machines all day at work.

Guy:Incognito

paw patrol wrote: »

I don't disagree with you.
Drink driving comes with a unique sentence - which can prevent you keeping or getting a job - without being locked up.

of course there are degrees of crimes ,

I don't see why a fellow slightly over the limit the next morning after leaving his local at closing time should lose his job but I think a fellow who drives home from the niteclub at 4am after 8 hours on the lash should be jailed.

one is a minor infraction possibly due to negligence and the latter is blatant f8cking with no regard for others.

You know you can lose your licence for many other things than drink driving?

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

.

As I said, maybe about 4 or 5 years ago the “morning after” started to be talked about. Before that nobody even thought about driving the next morning after a night out, it didn’t even enter the equation.

.

That's the way things work. People discover something is bad or wrong and try fix it. Maybe with a crystal ball we could fix things before they are known about.......


It's been a lot longer than 4 or 5 years btw.

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

There is a massive difference imo, you have had a nights sleep and are in a totally different frame of mind in the morning than at night.

.

See, this is the thing about opinions.........

Allinall

Kyleigh Enough Vaseline wrote: »

There is a massive difference imo, you have had a nights sleep and are in a totally different frame of mind in the morning than at night.

As I said, maybe about 4 or 5 years ago the “morning after” started to be talked about. Before that nobody even thought about driving the next morning after a night out, it didn’t even enter the equation.

I remember in college being on massive seasons till 4 or 5 in the morning, sleep on a floor and out the door at 8:30am drive to work in my part time job and drive various machines all day at work.

It’s not all about you, though.

amcalester

Allinall wrote: »

It’s not all about you, though.

Nox’s posts are always about Nox.

Allinall

Allinall wrote: »

It’s not all about you, though.

Well, I only care about me.

Bannasidhe

Discodog wrote: »

The UK found that a hard core of drivers ignore the law & take a chance. People do make mistakes & it is possible to be over the limit when you had no intention of being so.

Law needs to be proportionate otherwise people ignore it.

Oh if only there was some easy way to check so mistakes don't lead to accidents and/or prosecutions.

oh wait... https://www.gogroopie.ie/all/xctw7s5ml/_gggoogle_79OC_?gclid=Cj0KCQiAk-7jBRD9ARIsAEy8mh57Sfw0tmluNqVM_kgFjnP6UVfN6FI1n_WOU1pcOlxG9bbNGAXR3W8aAnCDEALw_wcB


For a few years I drove a motorbike - at the time a person could have one pint and be under the limit. I drank non alcoholic beer if I had the bike as I reckoned without the security of a car to give me some protection should an accident happen I was safer having my wits completely around me.
Still met my mates in the pub.
Still had a laugh.
Still had a beer.
Just didn't have alcohol.

It's not like the repercussions of drink driving haven't been advertised enough.
If a person is old enough to drive they are old enough to accept the repercussions for breaking the law.

But people act like drinking alcohol is a right and not being allowed to drive afterwards is some over the top nanny state interference in their civil liberties.

gctest50

brightspark wrote: »

...............


I would think that you would probably have had to been drinking either excessively late or to excess to still be over the limit the next morning...................

A few of those that get caught the morning after might be after having a quick "cure" before they headed out

V8 Interceptor

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

A person might have had half a pint.. That pushes you over the limit but that isn't going to translate into an automatic driving ban, at least in the first incidence.

What was all that kerfuffle about Ross' new law then?

V8 Interceptor

doolox wrote: »

I am currently undergoing a drink cessation exercise under doctors supervision because I am finding it difficult to keep my drinking levels below the WHO standards of 21 units per week. I am fearful of liver damage in the future.

:pac::pac::pac: