Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

alan partridge aha

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Or the other solution is to not go out on a mad tear if you're driving next morning How hard is that?

It don't matter if you are under then you are grand. Might be no harm to get into a group that gives you the heads up with regards checkpoints, flash for cash etc.

ArrBee

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not draconian. Its measured and known how much it has the potential to impede comprehension.

And there in lies the issue (well, one of).
"Potential."

To have such a hard line, scientifically rigid, cutoff between good/bad under/over grand/evil on something that is, itself not a black and white effect makes it draconian.

Yes, drink at certain levels WILL impair driving ability. yes, that level varies for all sorts of reasons. Yes, no one should drive impaired.

The old law made allowances for the variation in effect but having a more graduated approach. Points to start - as a buffer I suppose.
This approach makes sense.



You could say that many things have the "potential" to impair your driving....

ceoltoir

It's not just drink driving they're looking for. There are many drivers now out of their heads on drugs at all times of the day.

It seems to be a very Irish approach: I break the law of the land but I shouldn't pay the penalty for it. It's pitiful to see politicians—some of them in senior positions—calling for less enforcement, especially with our dire record on road deaths.

Personally, I think there aren't half enough checkpoints, and I say that as someone who drinks and who owns a car. We have a huge problem with speeding and drink driving but we just don't want to face up to it.

seamus

ArrBee wrote: »

To have such a hard line, scientifically rigid, cutoff between good/bad under/over grand/evil on something that is, itself not a black and white effect makes it draconian.

No, what would make it draconian would be for it to be subject to very harsh punishments, or left entirely at the discretion of the Garda to determine whether someone is or isn't drunk.

Drawing a hard line which one can be objectively compared against, is the only reasonable way when you're dealing with large populations. It's is impossible to determine the exact level of impairment on an individual basis, therefore a hard line against which everyone is measured is the only reasonable way to enforce it.

The penalties for minor infringements aren't exactly harsh and give the offender sufficient opportunity to correct their behaviour.

You're right - many things do have the potential to impair your driving, and people don't take most of them nearly seriously enough. I still see people on their phones, constantly. Just for one example.

We don't take driving seriously enough. It is the single most dangerous activity most of us do on a daily basis. And yet we're about as careful with is as we are going for a walk in the park. It should be really easy to lose your licence and really hard to get one. I mean "easy" like an automatic ban after six points. And automatic jail time for driving while banned. It's really easy to not get points. We just choose not to care about it that much. A little bit of focus is needed.

blanch152

ceoltoir wrote: »

It's not just drink driving they're looking for. There are many drivers now out of their heads on drugs at all times of the day.

It seems to be a very Irish approach: I break the law of the land but I shouldn't pay the penalty for it. It's pitiful to see politicians—some of them in senior positions—calling for less enforcement, especially with our dire record on road deaths.

Personally, I think there aren't half enough checkpoints, and I say that as someone who drinks and who owns a car. We have a huge problem with speeding and drink driving but we just don't want to face up to it.

I agree with you, I have only been breathalysed once in my life in nearly 40 years of driving.

As for that idiot of a Minister Finian McGrath, he of the anti-vaxxers, he is possibly the stupidest Minister ever (unless Halligan got a full Ministry at some stage?).

ArrBee

seamus wrote: »

No, what would make it draconian would be for it to be subject to very harsh punishments, or left entirely at the discretion of the Garda to determine whether someone is or isn't drunk.

Drawing a hard line which one can be objectively compared against, is the only reasonable way when you're dealing with large populations. It's is impossible to determine the exact level of impairment on an individual basis, therefore a hard line against which everyone is measured is the only reasonable way to enforce it.

The penalties for minor infringements aren't exactly harsh and give the offender sufficient opportunity to correct their behaviour.

You're right - many things do have the potential to impair your driving, and people don't take most of them nearly seriously enough. I still see people on their phones, constantly. Just for one example.

We don't take driving seriously enough. It is the single most dangerous activity most of us do on a daily basis. And yet we're about as careful with is as we are going for a walk in the park. It should be really easy to lose your licence and really hard to get one. I mean "easy" like an automatic ban after six points. And automatic jail time for driving while banned. It's really easy to not get points. We just choose not to care about it that much. A little bit of focus is needed.

I'd agree with much of what you say, but I think you might have missed one point I was trying to make....

The penalties ARE harsh since October last year.

Considering the near randomness that can take a result from 49 to a result of 51, I don't think a license suspension is warranted.
I believe that the old penalties were reasonable and gave people an opportunity to correct their behavior just fine.


I think that when people talk about drink driving laws these days, they are mostly referring to the change in penalty that happened last year. So is it a case of "being seen to be doing something"? or is it a well thought out and cleverly executed plan to reduce the road toll?
My money is on the 1st.

Marcus Rashford

How many deaths or serious injuries have been caused by people who’ve had 1-3 pints?

I would venture none.

Mebuntu

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

How many deaths or serious injuries have been caused by people who’ve had 1-3 pints?

I would venture none.

If even only one person's life has been saved due to a 1-3 pint drinker deciding not to drink them then the law is worth having.

amcalester

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

How many deaths or serious injuries have been caused by people who’ve had 1-3 pints?

I would venture none.

Between 2008 and 2012 16 people were killed by motorists who's BAC was between 50-80mg per 100ml.

Source

And before anyone says how do know alcohol was the cause...

Crucially, both those figures counted only cases in which the driver was deemed culpable due to alcohol being a contributory factor.

Mebuntu

Mebuntu wrote: »

If even only one person's life has been saved due to a 1-3 pint drinker deciding not to drink them then the law is worth having.

Applying the “if even one live was saved” thinking was applied to driving you would very quickly arrive and banning driving altogether. Should we reduce all limits to 30kmh, should we ban children in cars, should we have to prove a good nights sleep before driving, should old people with far slower reactions than a person with 3 pints be allowed drive etc etc etc.

Marcus Rashford

Exactly. We will never know whether the deaths would have happened regardless.

xckjoo

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

Exactly. We will never know whether the deaths would have happened regardless.

As amalcast said, it's only the cases where alcohol was deemed a contributing factor. Presumable that means they decided that the death wouldn't have occurred without alcohol

ArrBee

xckjoo wrote: »

As amalcast said, it's only the cases where alcohol was deemed a contributing factor. Presumable that means they decided that the death wouldn't have occurred without alcohol

Which is impossible to do.

best they could achieve is a fair guess as to which car was to blame and therefore which driver and work from that.

But even a person with alcohol in them can run a red light for reasons other than drink.


Regardless:
I'd suggest that with the stat provided there will certainly be a number of deaths that would have been avoided if the level of alcohol was less than 50.
Not all of them mind.

seamus

ArrBee wrote: »

The penalties ARE harsh since October last year.

I disagree. A harsh penalty would be jail time or a €10k fine for a 51 result. €200 and 3 months off the road, is not. It's a kick in the hole.

Considering the near randomness that can take a result from 49 to a result of 51, I don't think a license suspension is warranted.

Couldn't you say the same thing about the difference between 79 and 81 though? Fact is, if you're hovering on the edge anyway, then you're playing with fire. Nobody is going to be in a situation where they have a BAC of 0.02 but the test reads it over 0.05. The difference in impairment between 49 and 51 is minimal, so I wouldn't be shedding tears for someone who's a victim of such randomness.

I believe that the old penalties were reasonable and gave people an opportunity to correct their behavior just fine.

Considering the wailing about the new penalties, it would seem to me that the old penalties weren't having any impact on correcting behaviour. Clearly there are many people who would have taken the risk previously, but now won't. I'll admit I'm one of them. And having taken the time to think about it, that doesn't make my previous behaviour OK and now suddenly wrong. It was always wrong, but my mind has now been properly focussed.

If at all possible, it's preferable that people would change their behaviour and eliminate the chance of being caught, rather than get caught and then change their behaviour.

So is it a case of "being seen to be doing something"? or is it a well thought out and cleverly executed plan to reduce the road toll?
My money is on the 1st.

I don't entirely disagree. But sometimes ideas can have good unintended consequences. For the first time since I started driving, people are actually considering the consequences of drink-driving rather than discussing the best ways to not get caught.

amcalester

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

Exactly. We will never know whether the deaths would have happened regardless.

Tell me this, does it get tiring shifting those goalposts around?

ArrBee

seamus wrote: »

I disagree. A harsh penalty would be jail time or a €10k fine for a 51 result. €200 and 3 months off the road, is not. It's a kick in the hole.

Depends where you live I suppose.
3 months off the road can have a huge impact.
I can imagine living in a city, it would be a minor enough inconvenience.

seamus wrote: »

Couldn't you say the same thing about the difference between 79 and 81 though? Fact is, if you're hovering on the edge anyway, then you're playing with fire. Nobody is going to be in a situation where they have a BAC of 0.02 but the test reads it over 0.05. The difference in impairment between 49 and 51 is minimal, so I wouldn't be shedding tears for someone who's a victim of such randomness.

Nah, you wouldn't say the same thing with 79 vs 81.
If the law is 50 and you are blowing 81, you've had a decent buffer between 50 and 80 to allow for mistakes or the variability in the process.
It's the fact that the difference in impairment between 49 and 51 being minimal that I think suspension of license is over the top.

To say that 49 is OK and that 51 (which has minimal increase in impairment/risk) is a suspension is the bit I was calling draconian.

seamus wrote: »

Considering the wailing about the new penalties, it would seem to me that the old penalties weren't having any impact on correcting behaviour. Clearly there are many people who would have taken the risk previously, but now won't. I'll admit I'm one of them. And having taken the time to think about it, that doesn't make my previous behaviour OK and now suddenly wrong. It was always wrong, but my mind has now been properly focussed.

I see it a bit differently. Perhaps I'm in the minority but the major factor driving behavior is seeing a presence on the road.
If I felt there was nearly zero chance of being stopped with a high penalty vs high chance of being stopped with a low penalty, the high chance/low penalty would be a greater deterrent.

Sure, a low chance with a low penalty is even less of a deterrent but.

Marcus Rashford

amcalester wrote: »

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

Exactly. We will never know whether the deaths would have happened regardless.

Tell me this, does it get tiring shifting those goalposts around?

For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t booze and cruise. I used to alright but not anymore. Having said that, I don’t believe that three pints makes me a poor driver.

Grandeeod

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t booze and cruise. I used to alright but not anymore. Having said that, I don’t believe that three pints makes me a poor driver.

Years ago I used to booze and cruise when the Garda attitude to it was far less strict despite the law at the time. Now I'm not talking about abusing it to the point of being ****faced behind the wheel. Probably hard for some generations to understand that as recently as 20 years ago, you could actually admit to a Garda that you had 4 pints when the legal limit was 1.5 pints or thereabouts. They'd size you up, ask where you were going and if they made a judgement that you were okay, off you went. Certainly not an ideal scenario, but it happened. If I was stopped these days doing that, I'd be court bound at least.

I have no problem with doing all we can to prevent drink driving. But the morning after penalty is a bit draconian in terms of BAC at 50ml to 80ml. That is not just designed to catch the person who was on a bender until 2am and on the road at 8am after a sleep and some food. It penalizes someone who had a few pints, got a good sleep, is well capable of driving and fails on a reading that shouldn't warrant a ban of 3 months. If you feel groggy on that reading, then I suggest you give booze a miss. That said there are many misconceptions about how we metabolize a basic alcoholic drink. The current thinking is that a pint of 4% ABV lager takes 2 hours and if you drink 5 of them the clock only starts ticking after the fifth. That's not entirely true as the body starts metabolizing it straight away. It's not an exact science and to be absolutely sure, don't drink if you have to drive the next day. However there is absolutely scaremongering going on

I drive a lot across the country as part of my job. I can't afford to lose my license. I have carried out a few experiments in relation to BAC the morning after a reasonable few pints. I based it on the current guidelines of two hours per pint and the metabolism starting after the last pint. I bought a testing kit for 120 quid and have got some very varied results after using it on myself and a few friends. It was an eye opener and it really is the hours after your last drink and when you start driving. I'll share the results if anyone is interested.

Finally. I've been breath tested 3 times in the last 12 months and they have all been local to me. Two at around 5pm on a Sunday and once after midnight Saturday/Sunday. On all occasions I had driven from another part of the country without seeing a Garda car, never mind a checkpoint of any kind. I'm in Laois. The only other time was in Mullingar last Summer. I pulled up late at night just as they were packing their gear away. Thankfully they gave me directions to a 24 hour petrol station as I was on fumes.:D

alan partridge aha

Grandeeod wrote: »

Years ago I used to booze and cruise when the Garda attitude to it was far less strict despite the law at the time. Now I'm not talking about abusing it to the point of being ****faced behind the wheel. Probably hard for some generations to understand that as recently as 20 years ago, you could actually admit to a Garda that you had 4 pints when the legal limit was 1.5 pints or thereabouts. They'd size you up, ask where you were going and if they made a judgement that you were okay, off you went. Certainly not an ideal scenario, but it happened. If I was stopped these days doing that, I'd be court bound at least.

I have no problem with doing all we can to prevent drink driving. But the morning after penalty is a bit draconian in terms of BAC at 50ml to 80ml. That is not just designed to catch the person who was on a bender until 2am and on the road at 8am after a sleep and some food. It penalizes someone who had a few pints, got a good sleep, is well capable of driving and fails on a reading that shouldn't warrant a ban of 3 months. If you feel groggy on that reading, then I suggest you give booze a miss. That said there are many misconceptions about how we metabolize a basic alcoholic drink. The current thinking is that a pint of 4% ABV lager takes 2 hours and if you drink 5 of them the clock only starts ticking after the fifth. That's not entirely true as the body starts metabolizing it straight away. It's not an exact science and to be absolutely sure, don't drink if you have to drive the next day. However there is absolutely scaremongering going on

I drive a lot across the country as part of my job. I can't afford to lose my license. I have carried out a few experiments in relation to BAC the morning after a reasonable few pints. I based it on the current guidelines of two hours per pint and the metabolism starting after the last pint. I bought a testing kit for 120 quid and have got some very varied results after using it on myself and a few friends. It was an eye opener and it really is the hours after your last drink and when you start driving. I'll share the results if anyone is interested.

Finally. I've been breath tested 3 times in the last 12 months and they have all been local to me. Two at around 5pm on a Sunday and once after midnight Saturday/Sunday. On all occasions I had driven from another part of the country without seeing a Garda car, never mind a checkpoint of any kind. I'm in Laois. The only other time was in Mullingar last Summer. I pulled up late at night just as they were packing their gear away. Thankfully they gave me directions to a 24 hour petrol station as I was on fumes.:D

Ya Id say a lot of people would be interested in your results.
Last night I had 5 pints between 7 and 9:20pm. Drove to work this morning at 7:40 and felt fine but Id love to know would any have registered.

mzungu

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Applying the “if even one live was saved” thinking was applied to driving you would very quickly arrive and banning driving altogether. Should we reduce all limits to 30kmh, should we ban children in cars, should we have to prove a good nights sleep before driving, should old people with far slower reactions than a person with 3 pints be allowed drive etc etc etc.

They are applying it to drink driving, and not driving. You can't eliminate all road deaths, but you can try your best to eliminate preventable road deaths. Having a few jars is not a necessary part of driving. One life is worth more than a few pints.

Coillte_Bhoy

Grandeeod wrote: »

Years ago I used to booze and cruise when the Garda attitude to it was far less strict despite the law at the time. Now I'm not talking about abusing it to the point of being ****faced behind the wheel. Probably hard for some generations to understand that as recently as 20 years ago, you could actually admit to a Garda that you had 4 pints when the legal limit was 1.5 pints or thereabouts. They'd size you up, ask where you were going and if they made a judgement that you were okay, off you went. Certainly not an ideal scenario, but it happened. If I was stopped these days doing that, I'd be court bound at least.

I have no problem with doing all we can to prevent drink driving. But the morning after penalty is a bit draconian in terms of BAC at 50ml to 80ml. That is not just designed to catch the person who was on a bender until 2am and on the road at 8am after a sleep and some food. It penalizes someone who had a few pints, got a good sleep, is well capable of driving and fails on a reading that shouldn't warrant a ban of 3 months. If you feel groggy on that reading, then I suggest you give booze a miss. That said there are many misconceptions about how we metabolize a basic alcoholic drink. The current thinking is that a pint of 4% ABV lager takes 2 hours and if you drink 5 of them the clock only starts ticking after the fifth. That's not entirely true as the body starts metabolizing it straight away. It's not an exact science and to be absolutely sure, don't drink if you have to drive the next day. However there is absolutely scaremongering going on

I drive a lot across the country as part of my job. I can't afford to lose my license. I have carried out a few experiments in relation to BAC the morning after a reasonable few pints. I based it on the current guidelines of two hours per pint and the metabolism starting after the last pint. I bought a testing kit for 120 quid and have got some very varied results after using it on myself and a few friends. It was an eye opener and it really is the hours after your last drink and when you start driving. I'll share the results if anyone is interested.

Finally. I've been breath tested 3 times in the last 12 months and they have all been local to me. Two at around 5pm on a Sunday and once after midnight Saturday/Sunday. On all occasions I had driven from another part of the country without seeing a Garda car, never mind a checkpoint of any kind. I'm in Laois. The only other time was in Mullingar last Summer. I pulled up late at night just as they were packing their gear away. Thankfully they gave me directions to a 24 hour petrol station as I was on fumes.:D

So what were the results then? i was out this evening which is unusual, had 4 pints from 6 to 8pm. Im on the road at 6am so not worried but curious as to when i actually would be safe to drive and yeah i know everyone is different but still, be interesting to see some results

Grandeeod

Coillte_Bhoy wrote: »

So what were the results then? i was out this evening which is unusual, had 4 pints from 6 to 8pm. Im on the road at 6am so not worried but curious as to when i actually would be safe to drive and yeah i know everyone is different but still, be interesting to see some results

Will grab my notes and happily post up tomorrow!

Gotta go to bed as I had 6 pints between 6pm and now. The clock is ticking. Joking.:D

Bobtheman

In the meantime let's all go back to drinking poison in pubs just so long as we don't drink afterwards!
Let's continue to sell **** in supermarkets etc
So long as we have de checkpoints we is all saved so we is.

Grandeeod

Grandeeod wrote: »

. The current thinking is that a pint of 4% ABV lager takes 2 hours and if you drink 5 of them the clock only starts ticking after the fifth.

I think anytime making these statements isn’t doing any thinking. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for people to claim the clock only starts ticking after you finish the last drink as if you body knows when your last drink is. Of course the body starts processing the alcohol straight away so counting starts from when you start drinking.

Anyone who thinks otherwise just look at how drinking fast makes you drunk much faster than drinking slowly even if you drink more, it’s so obvious that this is because you are processing the drink as you drink it and drinking slower means your bac doesn’t raise to the same levels as drinking faster.

Marcus Rashford

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Grandeeod wrote: »

. The current thinking is that a pint of 4% ABV lager takes 2 hours and if you drink 5 of them the clock only starts ticking after the fifth.

I think anytime making these statements isn’t doing any thinking. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for people to claim the clock only starts ticking after you finish the last drink as if you body knows when your last drink is. Of course the body starts processing the alcohol straight away so counting starts from when you start drinking.

Anyone who thinks otherwise just look at how drinking fast makes you drunk much faster than drinking slowly even if you drink more, it’s so obvious that this is because you are processing the drink as you drink it and drinking slower means your bac doesn’t raise to the same levels as drinking faster.

If a pint takes two hours to absorb, 30 mins to drink, and you’ve six pints, when you’ve finished your six pints after three hours, there are still 4.5 pints in your system...probably even less in fact as the last one hasn’t really hit.

Twenty Grand

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Ya Id say a lot of people would be interested in your results.
Last night I had 5 pints between 7 and 9:20pm. Drove to work this morning at 7:40 and felt fine but Id love to know would any have registered.

Probably not.

Graces7

mzungu wrote: »

They are applying it to drink driving, and not driving. You can't eliminate all road deaths, but you can try your best to eliminate preventable road deaths. Having a few jars is not a necessary part of driving. One life is worth more than a few pints.

Thank you for this sense.

YFlyer

machiavellianme wrote: »

The thing that gets me about the drink driving issue is that a lot of the single car accidents that are reported in the late hours of the night / early morning may in fact be suicide. But that doesn't suit the RSA agenda so they are reporting them as drink/drug driving.

If there is a goodbye note, its not notified? Only if the person was drinking or not.

xckjoo

ArrBee wrote: »

Which is impossible to do.

best they could achieve is a fair guess as to which car was to blame and therefore which driver and work from that.

But even a person with alcohol in them can run a red light for reasons other than drink.


Regardless:
I'd suggest that with the stat provided there will certainly be a number of deaths that would have been avoided if the level of alcohol was less than 50.
Not all of them mind.

They can of course. Alcohol effects things like reaction time, focus, judgement, etc. so it lowers the quality of your overall driving. If you run a red light while drunk, then the alcohol was a factor. If you're* going to argue that you'd probably have run the light anyway because your normal driving skill is so poor, then it's a fairly pointless argument and we all might be better off without a driver like that on the road. And we're talking about something more than a cars running a light on a quiet junction after it's gone to red here. Whatever happened in each of those cases, it was a significantly poor enough action that it cause someone to lose their life.


Edit: *"You" here referring to a person in general, not ArrBee specifically

Dravokivich

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I think anytime making these statements isn’t doing any thinking. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for people to claim the clock only starts ticking after you finish the last drink as if you body knows when your last drink is. Of course the body starts processing the alcohol straight away so counting starts from when you start drinking.

Anyone who thinks otherwise just look at how drinking fast makes you drunk much faster than drinking slowly even if you drink more, it’s so obvious that this is because you are processing the drink as you drink it and drinking slower means your bac doesn’t raise to the same levels as drinking faster.

Also... the more you drink, the longer it takes for your liver to process.

Marcus Rashford

The figures for processing alcohol must vary quite considerably from person to person. I was breathlysed a number of years ago at around 10.30am and to be honest I thought I was goosed after a late night on the sauce. It registered a zero.

Guy:Incognito

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I never said ok meant under the limit, it’s quite difficult when we have such a low limit. I strongly disagree with arguments saying your not fit to drive with small amounts of drink your system that’s the main issue. I think the limit should be set to allow the average man have around 3 pints. A limit like this would mean you are very safe to have a decent night out and be under the next morning also, but won’t allow the actual dangers on the road which is the fella driving home after 12 pints or the lad drinking till 5am and getting up for work at 7am and driving etc.

Look everyone of us got up and drove after massive nights out without a second thought up until the morning after rules got invented a few years ago and there was no issues.

How do you know if you are in a crash, whether your fault or not, that any drink in your system hasn't affected your reactions even a tiny amount that could be the difference between someone dying or being injured?

The decision isnt yours to make on behalf of others .

Guy:Incognito

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

The figures for processing alcohol must vary quite considerably from person to person. I was breathlysed a number of years ago at around 10.30am and to be honest I thought I was goosed after a late night on the sauce. It registered a zero.

They are always given as an average.

ArrBee

xckjoo wrote: »

They can of course. Alcohol effects things like reaction time, focus, judgement, etc. so it lowers the quality of your overall driving. If you run a red light while drunk, then the alcohol was a factor. If you're* going to argue that you'd probably have run the light anyway because your normal driving skill is so poor, then it's a fairly pointless argument and we all might be better off without a driver like that on the road. And we're talking about something more than a cars running a light on a quiet junction after it's gone to red here. Whatever happened in each of those cases, it was a significantly poor enough action that it cause someone to lose their life.


Edit: *"You" here referring to a person in general, not ArrBee specifically

I disagree.
yes, it can be determined as a contributory factor sometimes but I would strongly believe that the statistics don't exclude instances where it is less clear if alcohol was actually a contributor. i.e they are artificially high because it is impossible to be accurate.

any blanket statement that, if present, alcohol will always be a contributor is a bit naive and perhaps a little emotive but perhaps in line the thread title.
If that is accepted, then the question becomes "how do you determine if alcohol was or wasn't a contributor?", which is easy to do at the extremes (some accidents will clearly be a yes or a no) but impossible for a large portion of accidents where its not so clear either way. I will put money on the fact that these accidents get counted in the "alcohol was a contributory factor" statistic.

I'm not saying that the stats are deliberately tallied that way to push an agenda, but pointing out a limitation with them. It is too difficult/impossible for them to be accurate, but they have to be recorded in some way.
You need to use a critical filter to the information you are fed, or you can hover it up as is. your choice really.

xckjoo

ArrBee wrote: »

I disagree.
yes, it can be determined as a contributory factor sometimes but I would strongly believe that the statistics don't exclude instances where it is less clear if alcohol was actually a contributor. i.e they are artificially high because it is impossible to be accurate.

any blanket statement that, if present, alcohol will always be a contributor is a bit naive and perhaps a little emotive but perhaps in line the thread title.
If that is accepted, then the question becomes "how do you determine if alcohol was or wasn't a contributor?", which is easy to do at the extremes (some accidents will clearly be a yes or a no) but impossible for a large portion of accidents where its not so clear either way. I will put money on the fact that these accidents get counted in the "alcohol was a contributory factor" statistic.

I'm not saying that the stats are deliberately tallied that way to push an agenda, but pointing out a limitation with them. It is too difficult/impossible for them to be accurate, but they have to be recorded in some way.
You need to use a critical filter to the information you are fed, or you can hover it up as is. your choice really.

I see what you're saying in theory but I don't feel it's applicable here. The stats we're talking about are people killed by drivers who were under the influence. It's not people who broke traffic laws while under the influence. So these drivers all did something (or failed to do something) that resulted in someones death. Your argument seems to be that they might easily have driven the same way without the alcohol, but that suggests you think it's normal for people to drive in a manner where fatalities are a normal possibility. It shouldn't be. Keeping people alive should 100% be the main priority when driving, not how fast can I get from A to B. Alcohol impairs decision making, reaction time, coordination and all the rest, so if you cause an accident with alcohol in your system, it's a contributing factor. Arguing that it effects people differently, etc. is moot because it can also effects you differently on different days. Sometimes you'll be grand after 5 pints, sometimes you could be wobbly after 2, and since alcohol impairs your judgement, you've no way of objectively judging without a blood-alcohol measurement.

Regarding the stats, your points seem to mainly be just your feelings on how it goes. I could equally argue that they're unrepresentative due to things like hit-and-runs or legal loop holes (not sure if they're counted in the stats). So saying things like that it's "impossible <to determine> for a large portion of accidents where its not so clear either way" without any information to back that up is extremely disingenuous. You're making it sound like most of those deaths could not possibly have been avoided if the person had not been drinking, again without any information to back up the assertion beyond some hypotheticals about ways the data gathering could be flawed (all the time assuming they're artificially high instead of artificially low).

Again, I want to remind you that we're talking about people being killed here, not someone getting a ticket for running a red light. Being a little drunk and killing someone isn't really better than being a lot drunk and killing someone.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

How do you know if you are in a crash, whether your fault or not, that any drink in your system hasn't affected your reactions even a tiny amount that could be the difference between someone dying or being injured?

The decision isnt yours to make on behalf of others .

Well if its not the person fault it’s not their fault so that’s not even up for debate imo.

As for being in a crash you will find something just as distracting to blame as 3 pints was it the bad nights sleep, was it being stressed with work, was it getting distracted with something in the car etc etc. Most people wouldn’t leave the house in the morning if they were not making decisions on their ability to drive it just isn’t even a decision to make for most people they just drive regardless.

Idbatterim

if you have to drive, just have a f**cking non alcoholic beer you absolute degenerates! Cant go out midweek and have a chat without a few alcoholic beers, I though the Irish were known for their craic and wit and being gregarious. Its pathetic!

xckjoo

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Well if its not the person fault it’s not their fault so that’s not even up for debate imo.

As for being in a crash you will find something just as distracting to blame as 3 pints was it the bad nights sleep, was it being stressed with work, was it getting distracted with something in the car etc etc. Most people wouldn’t leave the house in the morning if they were not making decisions on their ability to drive it just isn’t even a decision to make for most people they just drive regardless.

All that is also an issue, but doesn't mean you should add to it with an optional intoxicant.

Bobtheman

It suits the nanny state to harass drink drivers and learner drivers
Meanwhile it rakes in revenue from booze which causes a lot of social issues. A good third of hospital admittances have booze at the core.
We peddle food in supermarkets that cause obseity
We keep electing idiots who can't run or manage a health service resulting in thousands of deaths
But hey let's harass people to possibly save 30 lives
****ing hypocrite s

McCrack

Idbatterim wrote: »

if you have to drive, just have a f**cking non alcoholic beer you absolute degenerates! Cant go out midweek and have a chat without a few alcoholic beers, I though the Irish were known for their craic and wit and being gregarious. Its pathetic!

Oh **** off, we like to ****ing drink

Grandeeod

A narky thread.:D

Anyway, I said I'd come back with the results of the experiment I did with a tester kit that I bought for €120. As is usual I am not advocating drink driving in any way whatsoever. I nor my friends needed to actually drive the next day. These results are not approved by any official agencies and are guidelines only and in the interest of discussion. All the usual disclaimers apply.:D

Test 1 - I drank 6 pints of 4% ABV lager. Started at 5.30pm and finished my last one at 8.50pm. No food since lunchtime. I had a chinese takeaway afterwards. I tested myself at 7 am the next morning and passed.

Test 2 - Same amount of drinks as test one, but started at 7.30pm and finished at 11.10pm. No takeaway afterwards, but had dinner at 6pm. Tested myself at 7am and passed.

Test 3 - A friend started drinking at 4pm. Drank 8 pint bottles of Cider at 4.5% ABV. Then he moved on to whiskey, consuming approx. 6 shots of it. Fell asleep at around midnight. I tested him at 1pm the next day and he passed. Hardly any food was consumed. This was perhaps the most strenuous test.

Test 4 - Myself and a Friend had 4 pints of 4% ABV lager. Started at 10.45pm and finished at 12.20pm. The late night quick one. We tested together at 7am and both of us failed even after a burger and chips on the way home. We tested again at 8am and passed.

This is just a snapshot as I carried out loads more tests.

Idbatterim

Idbatterim wrote: »

if you have to drive, just have a f**cking non alcoholic beer you absolute degenerates! Cant go out midweek and have a chat without a few alcoholic beers, I though the Irish were known for their craic and wit and being gregarious. Its pathetic!

Might as well wait at home and drink tea if I can’t have pints, it’s the main reason for going out midweek is to relax and enjoy some creamy pints.

Graces7

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

Might as well wait at home and drink tea if I can’t have pints, it’s the main reason for going out midweek is to relax and enjoy some creamy pints.

so walk, or get someone to drive you. there are taxis

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

so walk, or get someone to drive you. there are taxis

I have no issue getting lifts or taxis to/from the pub and always do this. It’s when these draconian rules start interfering with getting to work the next morning that it becomes an issue and getting lifts and taxis are not practical in this scenario so you just have to drive regardless.

K.Flyer

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I have no issue getting lifts or taxis to/from the pub and always do this. It’s when these draconian rules start interfering with getting to work the next morning that it becomes an issue and getting lifts and taxis are not practical in this scenario so you just have to drive regardless.

Then don't drink so much that it could be a problem for you the next day.
Take responsibility for your own actions regarding how much you drink before you have to drive.
Maybe cut back a little on the drink, then you wouldn't have to get concerned about being stopped and checked the following day.

Feisar

Don't drink and drive.

Now on to my point, a person who barely fails a test, i.e. had two pints or will one put someone over the limit now? Isn't some sort of demon out to kill our kids. A person who drives tired is as big a threat. Who here hasn't drove shattered tired? I know I have loads of times.

I'll be on the road at 5:30 tomorrow morning and a pregnant wife who's doing a lot of twisting and turning means I probably won't be getting a good nights sleep.

Graces7

Emiliano Many Cardinal wrote: »

I have no issue getting lifts or taxis to/from the pub and always do this. It’s when these draconian rules start interfering with getting to work the next morning that it becomes an issue and getting lifts and taxis are not practical in this scenario so you just have to drive regardless.

No you don't. Period.

This thread makes me more and more thankful for the new laws. Clearly they are greatly needed

ArrBee

Feisar wrote: »

Don't drink and drive.

Now on to my point, a person who barely fails a test, i.e. had two pints or will one put someone over the limit now? Isn't some sort of demon out to kill our kids. A person who drives tired is as big a threat. Who here hasn't drove shattered tired? I know I have loads of times.

I'll be on the road at 5:30 tomorrow morning and a pregnant wife who's doing a lot of twisting and turning means I probably won't be getting a good nights sleep.

That's certainly true.

While the level of impairment caused by tiredness isn't currently testable there are other impairment causing offences like texting while driving.

How long before the penalty for using a phone becomes instant disqualification?
I would say that it poses a greater risk than driving below 80mg so it seems odd that the penalty is lower.

Feisar

ArrBee wrote: »

That's certainly true.

While the level of impairment caused by tiredness isn't currently testable there are other impairment causing offences like texting while driving.

How long before the penalty for using a phone becomes instant disqualification?
I would say that it poses a greater risk than driving below 80mg so it seems odd that the penalty is lower.

Hopefully it does as you say using the phone causes much greater impairment.

Bobtheman

I agree fully with you on the phones. Been caught a few times. I dont think instant disqualification should be the case first time-perhaps second.
I think one way to eliminate it is to have it obligatory to have a hand free set in each car.

I think Ross has made a mistake by changing the law. Just enforce what laws we have. He is doing damage to FG.

If you are living in a rural area you just have to get used to not drinking in pubs when you drive. Is it the booze or the company you seek?