Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

pleasant Co.

https://alcoholireland.ie/download/reports/alcohol_driving/Fatal-Collisions-2008-2012_Alcohol-as-a-Factor.pdf

The entire report is available from that website, it deals with a 4 year period between 2008-2012, it's quite an interesting read if anyone fancies delving further than the headline "38%" figure that's being repeated.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

pleasant Co. wrote: »

https://alcoholireland.ie/download/reports/alcohol_driving/Fatal-Collisions-2008-2012_Alcohol-as-a-Factor.pdf

The entire report is available from that website, it deals with a 4 year period between 2008-2012, it's quite an interesting read if anyone fancies delving further than the headline "38%" figure that's being repeated.

Interesting, the 38% figure is collisions where alcohol was considered a contributory factor in the collision. It’s not just that alcohol was present, it was considered to be one of the causes of the collision. And most of that 38% were drivers, not pedestrians. Also, in this category of incidents where alcohol was deemed contributory, not all of the drivers were above the legal limit.

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Considering all the different things that can cause accidents, 38% is pretty high. That’s a persuasive statistic in support of strict drink-driving laws, not against it. Of course other things also cause accidents. What do you suggest we do to penalise those who fall asleep at the wheel? My point being, not every cause of a car crash can be detected but we should catch the things that can be caught.

But stats can and often are deceiving, alcohol didn't necessarily cause 38% of all road fatalities, it was merely present 38% of the time and that's even if we believe the figure.

For example, didn't the guards flat out lie about the amount of checkpoints and breath checks only a few years ago. I can't remember the exact stats but apparently they were complete bs.

Just to be clear, I've never been a supporter of taking to the car pissed and I don't bother drink driving myself as it's not worth the risk. But you'll do well to convince me that somebody having 2 pints is as bad as having 10 and taking to the wheel.

Graces7

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But stats can and often are deceiving, alcohol didn't necessarily cause 38% of all road fatalities, it was merely present 38% of the time and that's even if we believe the figure.

For example, didn't the guards flat out lie about the amount of checkpoints and breath checks only a few years ago. I can't remember the exact stats but apparently they were complete bs.

Just to be clear, I've never been a supporter of taking to the car pissed and I don't bother drink driving myself as it's not worth the risk. But you'll do well to convince me that somebody having 2 pints is as bad as having 10 and taking to the wheel.

This is about human lives not stats. Even one that can be avoided is one family member for someone.

Huntergonzo

Graces7 wrote: »

This is about human lives not stats. Even one that can be avoided is one family member for someone.

I agree, nobody should take to the wheel when it is unsafe to do so, be they drunk, tired, after a big argument, with any kind of visual or physical impairment etc etc

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But stats can and often are deceiving, alcohol didn't necessarily cause 38% of all road fatalities, it was merely present 38% of the time and that's even if we believe the figure.

For example, didn't the guards flat out lie about the amount of checkpoints and breath checks only a few years ago. I can't remember the exact stats but apparently they were complete bs.

Just to be clear, I've never been a supporter of taking to the car pissed and I don't bother drink driving myself as it's not worth the risk. But you'll do well to convince me that somebody having 2 pints is as bad as having 10 and taking to the wheel.

Even if alcohol was only a true contributory cause in half of that 38% of cases, that would 19% of accidents overall. That’s a huge chunk. Nearly a fifth.

And in that report, not all the drivers in which alcohol was viewed as contributory to the accident were over the limit.

Fr_Dougal

When there’s a road fatality and a contributing factor is alcohol they should say it.

Joe bloggs died in a car accident, he was 2x over the legal limit.

ArrBee

I would supposed that part of the problem with the stat is that as a sentence it carries a meaning.
We all know what is meant by the stat.
But the reality is that there is no way to *accurately* say when alcohol has been a contributor or more to the point, when removing the alcohol would have changed the outcome of RTA.


Without that accuracy people will doubt the stat, as they are entitled to do.

Personally I think the stat is "the best and most reasonable approach they can make" and they have to be tracking it somehow but I would be cautious at using it as fact that I based further opinion on.

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Even if alcohol was only a true contributory cause in half of that 38% of cases, that would 19% of accidents overall. That’s a huge chunk. Nearly a fifth.

And in that report, not all the drivers in which alcohol was viewed as contributory to the accident were over the limit.

But how do we know for sure alcohol caused the accidents? I'd like a further breakdown of the alcohol levels per crash.

Also what happens say if a sober person crashes into someone who had 1 or 2 pints. Is alcohol then also added to the stats aswell?

Look I get why the authorities are pushing for zero tolerance, it makes people less likely to drink and drive at all.

But do you honestly think somebody who has had say 2 pints is a serious risk on the roads? More serious than someone who is locked, or extremely tired or has a habit of speeding?

murpho999

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I wouldn’t chance more than 2 anymore with the new limits, 3 on the old limits wouldn’t have bothered me. On a very rare occasion and not a for a long time I drove after a large number of pints I wouldn’t do it now.

To be honest I’ve Probably been over the next morning vastly more than after drinking as being over the next morning wasn’t even something that would enter your head until the last few years.

The thing is that drink driving does not mean you're going to go out and be all over the road but your reaction times are definitely impaired so you will not react to a situation as you normally would and that can be the difference between life and death.

Really no excuse or justification for it these days.

Also, don't get people will have a pint and enjoy it knowing you have to drive. Much more enjoyable when you don't have to drive.

Mango Joe

The fact that 86% of the drivers out there can't drive well even when they are sober should be mentioned at some point.......

xckjoo

Mango Joe wrote: »

The fact that 86% of the drivers out there can't drive well even when they are sober should be mentioned at some point.......

And most of them probably think they are great drivers and are still get drivers even after a couple of pints

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But how do we know for sure alcohol caused the accidents? I'd like a further breakdown of the alcohol levels per crash.

Also what happens say if a sober person crashes into someone who had 1 or 2 pints. Is alcohol then also added to the stats aswell?

Look I get why the authorities are pushing for zero tolerance, it makes people less likely to drink and drive at all.

But do you honestly think somebody who has had say 2 pints is a serious risk on the roads? More serious than someone who is locked, or extremely tired or has a habit of speeding?

If it was established that the sober person caused the accident, then alcohol wouldn’t be a contributory factor. Why would it be counted as contributory in that scenario?

And again, why the whataboutery? Being very inebriated whilst driving - dangerous. Being very tired whilst driving - dangerous. We know that. Asking if I think someone having two drinks is more dangerous is a daft question. Of course I don’t.

I think concentration is important when driving. I think any alcohol taken can dull concentration. People here say that one and two drinks doesn’t do that to them but they’re partial. It’s funny that people sceptically eyeball the statistics but not people’s self-reported stories about how little alcohol affects them. I know which I’d be more likely to believe.

BattleCorp

Steve wrote: »

Disable all mobile data if the user is travelling over 5kph...

Watch the road deaths drop.

How do you tell if the person is driving? They could be a passenger, or on a bus or train.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Mango Joe wrote: »

The fact that 86% of the drivers out there can't drive well even when they are sober should be mentioned at some point.......

xckjoo wrote: »

And most of them probably think they are great drivers and are still get drivers even after a couple of pints

Exactly. That’s why people’s tales of how a few drinks don’t affect them are so difficult to take seriously. So many people overestimate their abilities.

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If it was established that the sober person caused the accident, then alcohol wouldn’t be a contributory factor. Why would it be counted as contributory in that scenario?

And again, why the whataboutery? Being very inebriated whilst driving - dangerous. Being very tired whilst driving - dangerous. We know that. Asking if I think someone having two drinks is more dangerous is a daft question. Of course I don’t.

I think concentration is important when driving. I think any alcohol taken can dull concentration. People here say that one and two drinks doesn’t do that to them but they’re partial. It’s funny that people sceptically eyeball the statistics but not people’s self-reported stories about how little alcohol affects them. I know which I’d be more likely to believe.

You don't think it's possible for a crash to be pinned on the 'drunk' driver even if it wasn't their fault? I have to say I disagree.

Now listen I'm not having a go personally, I try to stay away from that sort of stuff but I think it's very naive not to eyeball statistics. They are incredibly easy to manipulate.

Didn't the guards tell ridiculous lies about the amount of checkpoints and breath tests being carried out only a year or 2 ago. If you believed those figures you were on a loser I'm afraid.

Ps, I don't believe people's stories any more or less than I believe stats. Neither stats nor stories mean anything to the individual, I know what I can and can't do and that's all that's relevant to me.

the beer revolu

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I know what I can and can't do and that's all that's relevant to me.

You think you know.

Unless you have done a controlled test, you really haven't a clue.

Reaction times tested without alcohol and then reaction times tested after 2 pints.
You can insist that you are not affected by two pints all you like but without evidence, its pure b0llocks, and would go against the vast amount of research.

Huntergonzo

the beer revolu wrote: »

You think you know.

Unless you have done a controlled test, you really haven't a clue.

Reaction times tested without alcohol and then reaction times tested after 2 pints.
You can insist that you are not affected by two pints all you like but without evidence, its pure b0llocks, and would go against the vast amount of research.

Not a bad idea to have a controlled test and if I pass, then I should get a Danny Healy Rae endorsed drink driving licence, I reckon I could skull 2 pints and easily pass the driving test.

I'd go for 4 pints though, I'm ambitious me.

Ps, are the reaction times of people who've had 2 pints any worse than those of the thousands of tired/stressed people who drive to work every morning? Bet they're not, and how come that isn't illegal?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

You don't think it's possible for a crash to be pinned on the 'drunk' driver even if it wasn't their fault? I have to say I disagree.

Now listen I'm not having a go personally, I try to stay away from that sort of stuff but I think it's very naive not to eyeball statistics. They are incredibly easy to manipulate.

Didn't the guards tell ridiculous lies about the amount of checkpoints and breath tests being carried out only a year or 2 ago. If you believed those figures you were on a loser I'm afraid.

Ps, I don't believe people's stories any more or less than I believe stats. Neither stats nor stories mean anything to the individual, I know what I can and can't do and that's all that's relevant to me.

Like I said before, even if we half the statistics from that report, it still would support the drink-driving limits that are in place.

And, as for you judging your own abilities - you are also biased because you’re you. Nobody escapes that.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Not a bad idea to have a controlled test and if I pass, then I should get a Danny Healy Rae endorsed drink driving licence, I reckon I could skull 2 pints and easily pass the driving test.

I'd go for 4 pints though, I'm ambitious me.

Ps, are the reaction times of people who've had 2 pints any worse than those of the thousands of tired/stressed people who drive to work every morning? Bet they're not, and how come that isn't illegal?

If there was a way to catch drivers that way, they would. How do you test for that?

Sleepy drivers are probably as dangerous as those who have had a couple of pints. Does that mean we shouldn’t test for intoxication because sleepiness is more difficult to detect? Reducing risk anywhere possible is the goal.

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Like I said before, even if we half the statistics from that report, it still would support the drink-driving limits that are in place.

And, as for you judging your own abilities - you are also biased because you’re you. Nobody escapes that.

Not really to be honest, if anything I had a history of selling myself short, not being over-confident. Started being more positive and can do in my 20s though and never looked back.

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

If there was a way to catch drivers that way, they would. How do you test for that?

Sleepy drivers are probably as dangerous as those who have had a couple of pints. Does that mean we shouldn’t test for intoxication because sleepiness is more difficult to detect? Reducing risk anywhere possible is the goal.

How about a game of whack-a-mole? that's pretty good at judging people's reactions. Be useless at that if you were tired.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

How about a game of whack-a-mole? that's pretty good at judging people's reactions. Be useless at that if you were tired.

Yes, being tired is also very dangerous for drivers. What is your point here?

the beer revolu

Huntergonzo wrote: »

How about a game of whack-a-mole? that's pretty good at judging people's reactions. Be useless at that if you were tired.

Who would be, in your opinion, a bigger danger on the road?

1. Someone who is tired
2. Someone who is tired and has had two pints

dudara

the beer revolu wrote: »

Who would be, in your opinion, a bigger danger on the road?

1. Someone who is tired
2. Someone who is tired and has had two pints

Can I go with option 3 Bob, someone on a mobile phone.

On a serious note, doing anything that impairs your ability to concentrate and react while driving is downright stupid. There is literally no defense for drink driving.

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, being tired is also very dangerous for drivers. What is your point here?

Make it as illegal and frowned up as drink driving. Lets have consistency.

xckjoo

dudara wrote: »

Can I go with option 3 Bob, someone on a mobile phone.

On a serious note, doing anything that impairs your ability to concentrate and react while driving is downright stupid. There is literally no defense for drink driving.

Or maybe 4) someone who vastly overestimates their own abilities to the extent that they think they aren't governed by the same biochemical reactions as the rest of the human race?

Some people here should report to their nearest doctor for study as they are apparently some kind of new species. Perfect attention and immune to the effects of intoxicants. Are the robots among us already? I thought they'd have a better understanding of how statistics work.

xckjoo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Make it as illegal and frowned up as drink driving. Lets have consistency.

Has anybody argued against this idea here? Don't think many would say they're as capable a driver when they're exhausted as when they're fresh and full of energy

Huntergonzo

the beer revolu wrote: »

Who would be, in your opinion, a bigger danger on the road?

1. Someone who is tired
2. Someone who is tired and has had two pints

If those are my only 2 options then option 2.

How would you rank the below drivers from most to least dangerous:

1. Someone who is exhausted tired
2. Someone who drank 2 pints
3. Someone who is constantly looking down at their phone
4. Someone who drives well above the speed limit. Say at least 20km/hr above.

Huntergonzo

xckjoo wrote: »

Has anybody argued against this idea here? Don't think many would say they're as capable a driver when they're exhausted as when they're fresh and full of energy

Don't hear of too many cases where tired drivers were banned off the road for 2 years either in fairness. If it's just as dangerous and frowned upon then surely it must be just as illegal.

flasher0030

recedite wrote: »

Eh...no. That 62% means neither the driver nor anyone else involved had taken any alcohol.
Of the 38%, a good few of them would have been pedestrians walking home from the pub because they didn't want to risk losing their license. Might have been walking home in a very safe manner too, and just got hit by someone who wasn't watching the road properly. Still counts as "alcohol involved" though.

Just goes to show - they would have been better off if they hopped into their car after the feed of scoops and drove home.

xckjoo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Don't hear of too many cases where tired drivers were banned off the road for 2 years either in fairness. If it's just as dangerous and frowned upon then surely it must be just as illegal.

Dunno what you're on about here. It's not currently illegal. Whether it should be or not is a different issue. Are you arguing that drink driving should be legal because some other equivalent dangerous thing is?

xckjoo

xckjoo wrote: »

Dunno what you're on about here. It's not currently illegal. Whether it should be or not is a different issue. Are you arguing that drink driving should be legal because some other equivalent dangerous thing is?

The argument is the limit should be set at a reasonable level not the crazy and pointless low limit we have. The old limit wasn't too bad you would more than likely be safe to drive after 3 pints and you also had a fair crack of the whip in the morning after a night out.

There is zero benefit in reducing the limit and its a major cause of hassle and inconvenience for a lot of people.

Huntergonzo

xckjoo wrote: »

Dunno what you're on about here. It's not currently illegal. Whether it should be or not is a different issue. Are you arguing that drink driving should be legal because some other equivalent dangerous thing is?

No drunk driving should always be illegal.

My point is so should tired driving as it's just as dangerous, it should also carry the same penalties but currently it doesn't.

alan partridge aha

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

The argument is the limit should be set at a reasonable level not the crazy and pointless low limit we have. The old limit wasn't too bad you would more than likely be safe to drive after 3 pints and you also had a fair crack of the whip in the morning after a night out.

There is zero benefit in reducing the limit and its a major cause of hassle and inconvenience for a lot of people.

Well to be fair, going by my expensive device I would probably be under at 3 pints if drank at a reasonable rate.

We can all drink and drive and it's fine as long as we are under.

Huntergonzo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

The argument is the limit should be set at a reasonable level not the crazy and pointless low limit we have. The old limit wasn't too bad you would more than likely be safe to drive after 3 pints and you also had a fair crack of the whip in the morning after a night out.

There is zero benefit in reducing the limit and its a major cause of hassle and inconvenience for a lot of people.

100% agree.

It's farcical to lump someone who's had 2-3 pints into the same boat as some wally who's gotten blind drunk and taken to the wheel. But sadly it seems like the propaganda has worked.

Be it 1 pint or 10, it doesn't matter, you're a lethal monster either way.

ArrBee

xckjoo wrote: »

Or maybe 4) someone who vastly overestimates their own abilities to the extent that they think they aren't governed by the same biochemical reactions as the rest of the human race?

Some people here should report to their nearest doctor for study as they are apparently some kind of new species. Perfect attention and immune to the effects of intoxicants. Are the robots among us already? I thought they'd have a better understanding of how statistics work.

Interestingly some humans do process alcohol differently to others.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Make it as illegal and frowned up as drink driving. Lets have consistency.

Right - it’s illegal. How do you monitor it?

Does anyone think driving tired is a good idea?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

The argument is the limit should be set at a reasonable level not the crazy and pointless low limit we have. The old limit wasn't too bad you would more than likely be safe to drive after 3 pints and you also had a fair crack of the whip in the morning after a night out.

There is zero benefit in reducing the limit and its a major cause of hassle and inconvenience for a lot of people.

The report linked in the thread showed that a good proportion of the accident where alcohol was a contributory cause, the driver was below the limit.

I await dismissal of those statistics and the introduction of anecdotes. They’re far more useful.

But oh noes! Hassle and inconvenience!

xckjoo

ArrBee wrote: »

Interestingly some humans do process alcohol differently to others.

Yup. And we don't make laws for the individual. Or are you proposing each person gets assigned an acceptable level of blood alcohol level when they do their driving test? Should it be based on what the person reckons they could handle? How do you propose addressing the fact that an individual may process it at different rates on different days?

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Right - it’s illegal. How do you monitor it?

Does anyone think driving tired is a good idea?

I told you, roadside whack-a-mole tests, be some craic to see :-)

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

100% agree.

It's farcical to lump someone who's had 2-3 pints into the same boat as some wally who's gotten blind drunk and taken to the wheel. But sadly it seems like the propaganda has worked.

Be it 1 pint or 10, it doesn't matter, you're a lethal monster either way.

This is quite disingenuous. Has anyone equated the two? One is more dangerous than the other but that doesn’t mean they’re not both dangerous. And, yes yes, driving exhausted is also dangerous.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I told you, roadside whack-a-mole tests, be some craic to see :-)

So lobby for it. Rather than remove the low drink-driving limits.

Huntergonzo

xckjoo wrote: »

Yup. And we don't make laws for the individual. Or are you proposing each person gets assigned an acceptable level of blood alcohol level when they do their driving test? Should it be based on what the person reckons they could handle?

No people can't be trusted to tell the truth.

My suggestion would be to keep doing the driving test with an increasing number of pints on board until you fail. Then that's your limit.

So if I pass my test with say 8 pints on board then that's my limit, but 9 is the 1 that's 1 too many, simple and it works :-)

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This is quite disingenuous. Has anyone equated the two? One is more dangerous than the other but that doesn’t mean they’re not both dangerous. And, yes yes, driving exhausted is also dangerous.

Dangerous.........but perfectly legal.

Huntergonzo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

This is quite disingenuous. Has anyone equated the two? One is more dangerous than the other but that doesn’t mean they’re not both dangerous. And, yes yes, driving exhausted is also dangerous.

Law treats you the same, you get banned either way if you're over the limit don't you?

May aswell be hung for a sheep as lamb as the auld saying goes and have 12 pints instead of 2 if you're screwed either way.

xckjoo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

No people can't be trusted to tell the truth.

My suggestion would be to keep doing the driving test with an increasing number of pints on board until you fail. Then that's your limit.

So if I pass my test with say 8 pints on board then that's my limit, but 9 is the 1 that's 1 too many, simple and it works :-)

See my additional edit. How do you propose handling the fact that you process it at different rates on different days and at different stages of life? It's only after the fact that you'll know you exceed your own limit. Seeing as that mistake could result in you killing someone, is it not better for society for that limit to be low across the board?

Huntergonzo

xckjoo wrote: »

See my additional edit. How do you propose handling the fact that you process it at different rates on different days and at different stages of life? It's only after the fact that you'll know you exceed your own limit. Seeing as that mistake could result in you killing someone, is it not better for society for that limit to be low across the board?

To be quite honest I don't know nor care, I don't have to think about it anyway because I don't get behind the wheel with any drink taken.

There's no enjoyment in risking my licence for a trivial amount of alcohol, I'd rather be doing something else.

My point is zero tolerance is way too far and we're heading there, the old limit of 0.08 or whatever it was, was probably just about fair but it's gone silly now. Do you really think somebody with 2-3 pints on board is a serious danger on the roads? Personally I don't.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Dangerous.........but perfectly legal.

That can change. In the meantime, I’m happy that whatever can be done to reduce fatalities is being done. Happy days.

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Law treats you the same, you get banned either way if you're over the limit don't you?

May aswell be hung for a sheep as lamb as the auld saying goes and have 12 pints instead of 2 if you're screwed either way.

What a bizarre attitude.

xckjoo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

To be quite honest I don't know nor care, I don't have to think about it anyway because I don't get behind the wheel with any drink taken.

There's no enjoyment in risking my licence for a trivial amount of alcohol, I'd rather be doing something else.

My point is zero tolerance is way too far and we're heading there, the old limit of 0.08 or whatever it was, was probably just about fair but it's gone silly now. Do you really think somebody with 2-3 pints on board is a serious danger on the roads? Personally I don't.

Luckily the law doesn't care about your personal opinion either