Drink driving-virtue signaling gone mad

blackwhite

Bobtheman wrote: »

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?

Very rare to get a new car the past 4-5 years (at least) that doesn't have bluetooth built in - but yet you still see people with phones held up their ear in 2/3 year old premium brand cars. Lack of a hands free option certainly isn't the cause there.

And that's before you consider the people reading texts, whatsapps, etc., or simply browsing the web/facebook.



That said - there's a world of difference between someone sitting waiting at traffic lights taking a quick look at a text message, compared to someone doing the same whilst the car is in motion, and there really should be distinct offences for each.

BBFAN

blackwhite wrote: »

Very rare to get a new car the past 4-5 years (at least) that doesn't have bluetooth built in - but yet you still see people with phones held up their ear in 2/3 year old premium brand cars. Lack of a hands free option certainly isn't the cause there.

And that's before you consider the people reading texts, whatsapps, etc., or simply browsing the web/facebook.



That said - there's a world of difference between someone sitting waiting at traffic lights taking a quick look at a text message, compared to someone doing the same whilst the car is in motion, and there really should be distinct offences for each.

I disagree with you there, I've seen plenty miss a light moving from red to green because they're reading a text/twitter/FB etc.

blackwhite

BBFAN wrote: »

I disagree with you there, I've seen plenty miss a light moving from red to green because they're reading a text/twitter/FB etc.

Are you really trying to argue that being slow moving off at a light is the same level of seriousness as reading a phone whilst actually moving??

One results, at worse, in people being delayed.

The other has the potential to result in fatalities


Both should be penalised, but anyone trying to claim that one isn’t a hell of lot more dangerous than the other is quite frankly an idiot

ArrBee

blackwhite wrote: »

One results, at worse, in people being delayed.

or as the fat controller would say "Confusion and delay"


All sorts of things can occur when someone is unpredictable on the road or causing confusion and delay. Its not just about the likelihood of the person on the phone to crash.
Having said that, I would agree a car in motion is a greater risk.

Trump Is Right

blackwhite wrote: »

That said - there's a world of difference between someone sitting waiting at traffic lights taking a quick look at a text message, compared to someone doing the same whilst the car is in motion, and there really should be distinct offences for each.

They are both part of the same pattern of behaviour. Whenever you are not paying attention to the road, even when stopped, you are an accident waiting to happen.

I would even make it illegal to use your phone as a sat nav tbh... because many people are tempted to answer calls and texts when their phone is in front of them for any reason...

As regards drink driving, I say increase the checkpoints and increase the punishments. Lazy people who can't be arsed getting a taxi, shouldn't be given any allowances. Make their life as uncomfortable as possible, just like smokers being inconvenienced more and more... I love that too!

Bobtheman

Trump Is Right wrote: »

blackwhite wrote: »

That said - there's a world of difference between someone sitting waiting at traffic lights taking a quick look at a text message, compared to someone doing the same whilst the car is in motion, and there really should be distinct offences for each.

They are both part of the same pattern of behaviour. Whenever you are not paying attention to the road, even when stopped, you are an accident waiting to happen.

I would even make it illegal to use your phone as a sat nav tbh... because many people are tempted to answer calls and texts when their phone is in front of them for any reason...

As regards drink driving, I say increase the checkpoints and increase the punishments. Lazy people who can't be arsed getting a taxi, shouldn't be given any allowances. Make their life as uncomfortable as possible, just like smokers being inconvenienced more and more... I love that too!

You obviously live in a town and don't get invited out much do you ?!

xckjoo

Bobtheman wrote: »

You obviously live in a town and don't get invited out much do you ?!

Maybe he's just good enough craic without being drunk

partyguinness

I was stuck behind a driver last week crawling along at about 30mph (urban). The ****er was watching The Big Bang Theory on his phone mounted on the dashboard. I could see it that clearly- at one stage he was stopped at a red light it turned green and no movement- I had to peep his dangerous ass.

Bobtheman

Bottom line is there is no Evidence that check points have increased. Prosecutions do seem to be on the up but it's too soon to tell if it means drink driving is increasing. Could be just a fluctuation.
It's funny in Ireland how a relatively minior thing such as a change in drink driving law has ramifications way beyond it's impact. You will get people who won't vote for FG over this while forgetting the housing or health crisis
I'd reckon that most people who got behind the wheel with booze had at least three pints putting them well clear of penalty points and straight into prosecution.
All that being said Ross has pissed off a sizeable section of the electorate and for what exactly? Given the overall lack of check points there won't be a huge decline in booze or learner driver prosecutions.

Coillte_Bhoy

Bobtheman wrote: »

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?

Ridiculous. Using a phone when driving should be an instant disqualification, there is no justification for it. I would much rather if some Garda resources were re assigned from morning check points to try and stamp out this trend.

Coillte_Bhoy

Bobtheman wrote: »

Bottom line is there is no Evidence that check points have increased. Prosecutions do seem to be on the up but it's too soon to tell if it means drink driving is increasing. Could be just a fluctuation.
It's funny in Ireland how a relatively minior thing such as a change in drink driving law has ramifications way beyond it's impact. You will get people who won't vote for FG over this while forgetting the housing or health crisis
I'd reckon that most people who got behind the wheel with booze had at least three pints putting them well clear of penalty points and straight into prosecution.
All that being said Ross has pissed off a sizeable section of the electorate and for what exactly? Given the overall lack of check points there won't be a huge decline in booze or learner driver prosecutions.

I know its anecdotal and needs to be seen as as such but the reports from a ll over the country suggest otherwise

Bobtheman

I stand over my statement. No evidence

Richard Bingham

People who expect drivers to have zero alcohol are missing the point. The law is supposed to have balance.

The mostly practical thing to do in rural areas would be to allow people to drive home from their nearest pub, between the hours of 11am and 1am, below 50kmph, and only on by-roads. People, for the most part, aren’t dying in these type situations.

If you could eliminate stupidity it would save alot more lives, or mobile phone use, or speed.

It would save a lot of injuries and some deaths if road traffic laws were enforced against cyclists in Dublin who continuously run red lights but it isn’t being enforced. Why is everyone so adamant that one law (which is destroying rural Ireland) should be enforced but not another. Why should I have to swerve around cyclists cycling the wrong way up one way streets in the dark on winter mornings. Not to mention the sulkies, dirt bikes in parks, gougers driving recklessly in uninsured cars.

Dublin has enough to sort out before it sorts out rural Ireland.

AlekSmart

Steve wrote: »

To be clear, I do not condone driving whilst incapacitated either by alcohol, narcotics, or sheer stupidity, however the political drive to be seen to be doing something by reducing the limits and increasing penalties is total and utter bo11ix while the other hand is taking away the ability to enforce the existing laws. Sorry for the rant, so sick of this crap from Ross & co.

You're not the only one feeling that way about our Minister for Transport and his crusade(s). .......

I found this open letter to the Irish Times worth a bit of consideration.....

Drink-driving proposals inconsistent with the scientific evidence

www.irishtimes.com

June 19th, 2017

Drink drivng limits

Sir, – Current drink-driving legislation stipulates that drivers found with blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of 51 to 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood (mg%) receive three penalty points and a €200 fine. Minister for Transport Shane Ross proposes to replace this penalty with a three-month ban on driving. It is claimed that the new legislation is justified by scientific evidence but we believe that some of this evidence is not as sound as generally assumed and that, in all the circumstances pertaining to this issue, Mr Ross’s proposal is unnecessarily severe.

The Road Safety Authority (RSA) website (rsa.ie) boldly asserts that “Any alcohol impairs driving and increases the risk of a collision. This is not an opinion, it is a scientific fact”. Mr Ross and the previous minister for transport have endorsed this assertion. However, this assertion is not true because alcohol is naturally formed by the microflora or microbiome of the human gastrointestinal tract. The typical BAC resulting from this unavoidable source is about 5 mg% but in unusual cases, referred to as “auto brewery syndrome”, can be as high as 115 mg% or more. It is therefore disingenuous to claim that “Any alcohol impairs driving”. “Any alcohol” implies zero (0 mg%) alcohol in the blood of a person who has not had a drink of alcohol but this is scientifically inaccurate. Rather the pertinent question is at what lower BAC level does driving impairment set in?

The RSA website cites a dated American 1988 literature review to support the claim that there is no threshold level of BAC below which driving is not impaired. However, a recent well-designed study by S Charlton and N Starkey, of the University of Waikato, New Zealand, in 2013 compared the effects of driver BACs of 50 mg% and 80 mg% with a placebo (a mock alcoholic drink containing no alcohol) on the standard of driving. Whereas a BAC of 80 mg% significantly impaired driving quality, a BAC of 50 mg% did not significantly impair quality of driving when compared to the placebo. So, the threshold Irish level of 50 mg% to 80 mg% BAC at which the new proposed legal penalties would apply seems to be somewhat out of step with the best available evidence. It is also noteworthy that the BAC legal limit is 80 mg% in the United States and in England and Wales.

The RSA website also states that alcohol is a contributory factor in 38 per cent of fatal road accidents, ie significant BACs are recorded in drivers/pedestrians in 38 per cent of these accidents. This correlation is popularly interpreted to mean that 38 per cent of road accident fatalities are caused by alcohol. However, the fraction of total fatal accidents caused by alcohol may well be a lot lower than 38 per cent because other confounding factors may impair driving – drowsiness, emotional upset, prescription drugs, road standard, speeding, tailgating, bad weather, etc – some of which may be present in addition to blood alcohol. In order to isolate the direct effect of BAC on road fatalities, road accident statistics would have to be fully controlled for these confounding variables, but these confounders are not taken into account in the RSA statistics. The RSA and the Minister need to appreciate that correlation is just that; it does not mean causation.

A further argument against adopting the proposed new penalties resides in the fact that regular drinkers develop both functional and metabolic tolerance to alcohol, whereas the proposed legislation applies the “one size fits all” standard to the penalties. And finally we feel that legal challenge to the proposed legislation in its current form would be likely on the basis that it is inconsistent with the scientific evidence.

We accept that Mr Ross is acting with the best of intentions, if not on the best evidence. It is fully accepted that drink-driving is a matter for serious concern and we have no wish to argue that it is acceptable for anybody to drive having ingested small amounts of alcohol. But it must also be appreciated that losing one’s driving licence, even for three months, can be an enormous burden. Under the Minister’s proposals this would happen at a BAC of 51mg%, even though driving ability was not impaired at all. We feel it would be more appropriate to retain the present penalty for a first offence of a BAC level of 50 mg% to 80 mg% and to apply the three-month driving ban only in the event of a second offence. This would accommodate the equivocal evidence that driving is significantly impaired at the lowest BAC levels in the 50mg% to 80mg% range, but would sound a clear warning that flirting with drinking and driving will not be tolerated. – Yours, etc,

Prof (Emeritus)

JAMES HEFFRON, MRIA

Biochemical Toxicology Laboratory,

School of Biochemistry and Cell Biology,

University College Cork;

WILLIAM J REVILLE, Prof (Emeritus)

School of Biochemistry and Cell Biology,

University College Cork.

Good to see a little informed debate being fostered,for a change ?

Guy:Incognito

Richard Bingham wrote: »

People who expect drivers to have zero alcohol are missing the point. The law is supposed to have balance.

The mostly practical thing to do in rural areas would be to allow people to drive home from their nearest pub, between the hours of 11am and 1am, below 50kmph, and only on by-roads. People, for the most part, aren’t dying in these type situations.

If you could eliminate stupidity it would save alot more lives, or mobile phone use, or speed.

It would save a lot of injuries and some deaths if road traffic laws were enforced against cyclists in Dublin who continuously run red lights but it isn’t being enforced. Why is everyone so adamant that one law (which is destroying rural Ireland) should be enforced but not another. Why should I have to swerve around cyclists cycling the wrong way up one way streets in the dark on winter mornings. Not to mention the sulkies, dirt bikes in parks, gougers driving recklessly in uninsured cars.

Dublin has enough to sort out before it sorts out rural Ireland.

Or. bear with me on this, people could realise that drinking isnt compulsory.

John_Rambo

Richard Bingham wrote: »

People who expect drivers to have zero alcohol are missing the point. The law is supposed to have balance.
The mostly practical thing to do in rural areas would be to allow people to drive home from their nearest pub, between the hours of 11am and 1am, below 50kmph, and only on by-roads. People, for the most part, aren’t dying in these type situations.

They are.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

If you could eliminate stupidity it would save alot more lives, or mobile phone use, or speed.

Your post is stupid

Richard Bingham wrote: »

It would save a lot of injuries and some deaths if road traffic laws were enforced against cyclists in Dublin who continuously run red lights but it isn’t being enforced.

Cyclist don't kill hundreds of people every year. Cars do, and drunk drivers do.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Dublin has enough to sort out before it sorts out rural Ireland.

It's a national enforcement, not specifically regionalised law. Rural crime needs to be tackled just as much as urban crime.

Rubberchikken

oh bob bob bob, you sad delusional one, of course you're over the limit with 3 pints. whether a person drives 1 mile or 1 million with alcohol in them, not only are they breaking the law and fooling themselves they're insulting and risking the life of every road user they come in contact with.

rizzodun

Richard Bingham wrote: »

People who expect drivers to have zero alcohol are missing the point. The law is supposed to have balance.

The mostly practical thing to do in rural areas would be to allow people to drive home from their nearest pub, between the hours of 11am and 1am, below 50kmph, and only on by-roads. People, for the most part, aren’t dying in these type situations.

If you could eliminate stupidity it would save alot more lives, or mobile phone use, or speed.

It would save a lot of injuries and some deaths if road traffic laws were enforced against cyclists in Dublin who continuously run red lights but it isn’t being enforced. Why is everyone so adamant that one law (which is destroying rural Ireland) should be enforced but not another. Why should I have to swerve around cyclists cycling the wrong way up one way streets in the dark on winter mornings. Not to mention the sulkies, dirt bikes in parks, gougers driving recklessly in uninsured cars.

Dublin has enough to sort out before it sorts out rural Ireland.

So I’m sober, driving the other direction at this time and doing the speed limit (i.e. more than 50kph) and this driver crosses onto my side of the road albeit at 50kph but impaired and I hit him head on because I had no time to react.

What a load of utter bull crap.

So if people for the most part aren’t dying how many deaths do you deem acceptable so you may have a few pints down the local and drive home?

Richard Bingham

rizzodun wrote: »

So I’m sober, driving the other direction at this time and doing the speed limit (i.e. more than 50kph) and this driver crosses onto my side of the road albeit at 50kph but impaired and I hit him head on because I had no time to react.

What a load of utter bull crap.

So if people for the most part aren’t dying how many deaths do you deem acceptable so you may have a few pints down the local and drive home?

Why wouldn’t you react. You’re supposed to be able to control your vehicle. I have to brake harshly in Dublin several times a week due to stupidity of other drivers. Why can’t you brake so I can have a couple of beers? I’d prefer to be drunk than stupid. The alcohol will wear off.

Richard Bingham

John_Rambo wrote: »

They are

Great argument.

John_Rambo wrote: »

Your post is stupid

No, your post is stupid. What age are you, 10?

John_Rambo wrote: »

Cyclist don't kill hundreds of people every year. Cars do, and drunk drivers do.

No, cyclists get killed themselves needlessly, and the lives of the people who kill them are ruined. And even where they don’t get killed, they cause damage and inconvenience for motorists who have to swerve around them day and night. Cyclists new to start respecting the law and if they don’t they should be prosecuted and you can kiss my ass if you think that you decide which laws get enforced.

John_Rambo wrote: »

It's a national enforcement, not specifically regionalised law

Except that it doesn’t matter in Dublin as you have public transport.

It’s a law championed by a fool and even the Gardai don’t support it, that’s why they’re enforcing it so well. FG are going to get fncked by rural voters next time round.

ogsjw

Today I learned police actually doing their jobs and trying to preserve life is 'virtue signalling'. They should go back to sitting on their arse or committing crimes themselves I suppose.

The alt-right have a lot to answer for. Every Tomás, Dickensey and Harris is spouting their buzzwords now, and out of context to boot.

Richard Bingham

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Or. bear with me on this, people could realise that drinking isnt compulsory.

Most people drink alcohol when socializing.

A huge amount of people are over the limit the next morning, even if they only have a relatively moderate amount of alcohol the night before.

Due to our inadequate police service only the unlucky ones get caught.

People with connections don’t get caught - they get a Garda escort.

As well as it being near impossible to stay within the law if you live in a rural area (because there is no public transport).

The consequences are far more severe if you live in a rural area as it effectively means you lose your job also (because there is no public transport).

Theee isn’t a person on here who wouldn’t feel hard done by if they were bagged on a Monday morning after 3 or 4 pints the night before.

Like the professor said in the letter posted above, just because there is some alcohol in the blood in a particular percentage of fatalities, doesn’t mean that this same percentage of road deaths are caused by alcohol. Old fashioned driver error (sometimes by the other driver), black ice, inadequate roads etc cause some of these deaths.

It’s a disproportionate law based on a misinterpretation of the available data.

Slanty

Can somebody answer me this.

If an accident happens and it turns out one of the drivers was over the limit. Does that person immediately become responsible?

Amirani

Richard Bingham wrote: »

No, cyclists get killed themselves needlessly, and the lives of the people who kill them are ruined. And even where they don’t get killed, they cause damage and inconvenience for motorists who have to swerve around them day and night. Cyclists new to start respecting the law and if they don’t they should be prosecuted and you can kiss my ass if you think that you decide which laws get enforced.

Fair enough. As long as you're happy that drink driving laws get enforced fully.

Marcus Rashford

My biggest issue with drink driving is best illustrated by way of an example:

- I’m driving along and out of nowhere a child steps out in front of me. The child is killed. Whilst sad about it, I get over it quickly as it wasn’t my fault.

- As above, but I’ve had a few pints. I am torn apart with guilt forever as I will never know whether the booze prevented me from reacting.

John_Rambo

Richard Bingham wrote: »

No, cyclists get killed themselves needlessly, and the lives of the people who kill them are ruined. And even where they don’t get killed, they cause damage and inconvenience for motorists who have to swerve around them day and night. Cyclists new to start respecting the law and if they don’t they should be prosecuted and you can kiss my ass if you think that you decide which laws get enforced.

Lol... who told you that? Lets deal with actual facts here instead of your bar stool stories. Most cyclists are killed by cars in broad daylight on high speed roads, not in cities going the wrong way up one way streets. There's been a few cases of hit and runs in rural areas with drunk drivers.


Cyclists are actually the safest road users in Dublin city according to Transdev with car drivers causing over half of the accidents and emergency brakings. Cyclists caused less than 10%.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Except that it doesn’t matter in Dublin as you have public transport.

That's why people buy in urban areas Richard! They want to socialise, use public transport, have amenities and facilities close at hand. If you've locked yourself in to a car reliant lifestyle that's your problem. You've no connection with the land, you're not a farmer, so a pretty unwise choice, but deal with it and stay within the law. Good man.

Marcus Rashford

I commute into Dublin city on a daily basis. My observation is that cyclists are a menace and cause mayhem on the roads.

Deja Boo

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

My biggest issue with drink driving is best illustrated by way of an example:

- I’m driving along and out of nowhere a child steps out in front of me. The child is killed. Whilst sad about it, I get over it quickly as it wasn’t my fault.

- As above, but I’ve had a few pints. I am torn apart with guilt forever as I will never know whether the booze prevented me from reacting.

My biggest issue with drunk driving is best illustrated by way of loss...... three family members killed because of it.

Pinch Flat

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

My biggest issue with drink driving is best illustrated by way of an example:

- I’m driving along and out of nowhere a child steps out in front of me. The child is killed. Whilst sad about it, I get over it quickly as it wasn’t my fault.

- As above, but I’ve had a few pints. I am torn apart with guilt forever as I will never know whether the booze prevented me from reacting.

I doubt a normal person would ever get over both the scenarios you outlined. The latter one though you’d have the “what if”, could I have reacted better with out alcohol?

Marcus Rashford

Pinch Flat wrote: »

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

My biggest issue with drink driving is best illustrated by way of an example:

- I’m driving along and out of nowhere a child steps out in front of me. The child is killed. Whilst sad about it, I get over it quickly as it wasn’t my fault.

- As above, but I’ve had a few pints. I am torn apart with guilt forever as I will never know whether the booze prevented me from reacting.

I doubt a normal person would ever get over both the scenarios you outlined. The latter one though you’d have the “what if”, could I have reacted better with out alcohol?

I think a normal person would quite easily get over the first scenario.

blade1

Where are these normal people?
I've yet to meet one!

Deja Boo

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

I think a normal person would quite easily get over the first scenario.

If this is the case, for once in my life I am glad not to be normal... or heartless.

Ave Sodalis

Marcus Rashford wrote:

I think a normal person would quite easily get over the first scenario.

I don't think I would easily get over a scenario where I was in the same vicinity of a child getting killed by a car, even if I had absolutely nothing to do with it. Nevermind actually hitting the child myself, regardless of blame.

Pinch Flat

Deja Boo wrote: »

If this is the case, for once in my life I am glad not to be normal... or heartless.

Some people seem to revel in demonstrating their detachment, lack of empathy and general heartlessness. They’re probably not like that in real life. Kind of weird. It’s a child we’re talking about.

Marcus Rashford

Uh oh...millenial snowflake alert!

Pinch Flat

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

Uh oh...millenial snowflake alert!

I’m driving since 1987. So work out the maths. I’m far from a millennial.

Deja Boo

Marc Rash wrote:

Uh oh...appreciation for humanity alert!

fyp

Ave Sodalis

Marcus Rashford wrote:

Uh oh...millenial snowflake alert!

So edgy.

John_Rambo

Marcus Rashford wrote: »

I commute into Dublin city on a daily basis. My observation is that cyclists are a menace and cause mayhem on the roads.

Silly post. Not sure if you understand the meaning of the words you use or if you don't understand what causes road casualties. I'll school you anyway.

Menace - a person or thing that is likely to cause harm; a threat or danger.
Mayhem - violent or extreme disorder; chaos.

I live and commute in Dublin. My observation is that cars cause huge tailbacks and choke up the roads causing chaos and disorder. I have the cop to realise that if every cyclist was in a car it would be worse.

I also have the stats that show cars kill and maim a lot more people the pushbikes do making them the true menace and cause of mayhem on the roads.

Calina

Read this thread with interest.

I live in Luxembourg.

http://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/luxembourg/story/quatre-permis-retires-pour-alcool-au-volant-15425409

This weekend, 4 drivers had their driving licences confiscated on the spot for excessive blood alcohol levels. This included one driver sleeping in his car.

The penalties are ranked in LU.

Blood alcohol of 0.5% or lower, or breath of 25mgL or lower - ok
0.5 - 0.8 - 145e fine plus 2 points for first offence, else 6 points
0.8-1.2 - 500e fine, 4 points first offence, 6 for repeat.
1.2 or above: automatic loss of licence, fine between 500- 10,000E. 6 points and jail between 8 days and 3 years

The blood alcohol maximum for a whole array of drivers is 0.2%.

Knowing Ireland, and reading this thread, I have no doubt that licence confiscation at the side of the road would probably wind up in the Supreme Court.

I lived in Dublin for 17 years. I got breathalysed once. I was not drinking so I was fine.

You have no god given right to drink and drive. If you want to drive, don't drink. If you want to drink don't drive. If you struggle with this, you probably have an alcohol problem.

blackwhite

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Theee isn’t a person on here who wouldn’t feel hard done by if they were bagged on a Monday morning after 3 or 4 pints the night before

If you’d four pints between 11pm-1am, then you’d be under the legal limit by 9am at the latest.

If I need to be on the road before noon then I’ll be very careful with what I consume the night before - funny how the vast majority of people can manage to do that

rizzodun

Richard Bingham wrote: »

Why wouldn’t you react. You’re supposed to be able to control your vehicle. I have to brake harshly in Dublin several times a week due to stupidity of other drivers. Why can’t you brake so I can have a couple of beers? I’d prefer to be drunk than stupid. The alcohol will wear off.

A person can only react if they have time, if you give them no time then they cannot react. Not sure your stupidity will wear off with comments like that to be honest.

Faugheen

Calina wrote: »

You have no god given right to drink and drive. If you want to drive, don't drink. If you want to drink don't drive. If you struggle with this, you probably have an alcohol problem.

It's this self-entitlement attitude that the Irish often mock the Brits over. People think they should be allowed to drink and drive because they've never crashed and it's infuriating.

It's horsesh*t and a complete slap in the face to anyone who has been affected by the actions of drivers who were under the influence.

I love my pints as much as the next person, but I'd never get in the car even after only 2 or 3.

People who bitch and moan about guards trying to reduce the number of drunk drivers on our roads are just poxes who want to give out.

Richard Bingham

John_Rambo wrote: »

Lol... who told you that? Lets deal with actual facts here instead of your bar stool stories. Most cyclists are killed by cars in broad daylight on high speed roads, not in cities going the wrong way up one way streets. There's been a few cases of hit and runs in rural areas with drunk drivers.


Cyclists are actually the safest road users in Dublin city according to Transdev with car drivers causing over half of the accidents and emergency brakings. Cyclists caused less than 10%.




That's why people buy in urban areas Richard! They want to socialise, use public transport, have amenities and facilities close at hand. If you've locked yourself in to a car reliant lifestyle that's your problem. You've no connection with the land, you're not a farmer, so a pretty unwise choice, but deal with it and stay within the law. Good man.

I don’t accept your stats and the law is either to be obeyed or not. It’s not down to you to decide.

What a moronic comment - you have to be a farmer to live in a rural area? Are all the other occupations which are required in a city not needed in a rural area? Rural dwellers are supposed to travel to Dublin to get a tooth pulled or have their car serviced.

Engage your brain before opening your mouth. Good man. 😜

John_Rambo

Richard Bingham wrote: »

I don’t accept your stats and the law is either to be obeyed or not. It’s not down to you to decide.

You’re incorrect. Stats are stats

Cars kill people, push bikes don’t.

Regarding the law? Keep flaunting it, keep drink driving, you’ll be caught or you’ll crash. So my advice is to keep sober behind the wheel Richard. For your own good and the good of those in your community.

Richard Bingham wrote: »

What a moronic comment - you have to be a farmer to live in a rural area?

I didn’t say that. But you have to realise, when you move to a rural area you’re going to have to put up with the results!

Did you ever hear the phrase “you’re in the country now”?

It means you don’t have the every day conveniences that urban dwellers have. You don’t have public transport and cycling may not be an option because of bad drivers. So, if you’re unable to socialise without drink driving and if you can’t curb your drinking to enable you to drive in the morning below the alcohol limit rural living is not for you.

Engage your brain before opening your mouth.
Engage your brain before getting in to your car.

KrustyUCC

Calina wrote: »

Read this thread with interest.

I live in Luxembourg.

http://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/luxembourg/story/quatre-permis-retires-pour-alcool-au-volant-15425409

This weekend, 4 drivers had their driving licences confiscated on the spot for excessive blood alcohol levels. This included one driver sleeping in his car.

The penalties are ranked in LU.

Blood alcohol of 0.5% or lower, or breath of 25mgL or lower - ok
0.5 - 0.8 - 145e fine plus 2 points for first offence, else 6 points
0.8-1.2 - 500e fine, 4 points first offence, 6 for repeat.
1.2 or above: automatic loss of licence, fine between 500- 10,000E. 6 points and jail between 8 days and 3 years

The blood alcohol maximum for a whole array of drivers is 0.2%.

Knowing Ireland, and reading this thread, I have no doubt that licence confiscation at the side of the road would probably wind up in the Supreme Court.

I lived in Dublin for 17 years. I got breathalysed once. I was not drinking so I was fine.

You have no god given right to drink and drive. If you want to drive, don't drink. If you want to drink don't drive. If you struggle with this, you probably have an alcohol problem.

Is the 0.5 - 0.8 band the same as 50mg - 8omg level we used to have in Ireland?

Hector Savage

I read the title of this thread as "Truck Driving -virtue signaling gone mad"

Anteayer

Since when has a public safety campaign aimed at reducing deaths by ensuring people are competent and capable of controlling a vehicle been "virtue signalling". It's law enforcement!

People really need to stop throwing these increasingly meaningless phrases around as they don't really add to any argument.

lalababa

Rubberchikken wrote: »

oh bob bob bob, you sad delusional one, of course you're over the limit with 3 pints. whether a person drives 1 mile or 1 million with alcohol in them, not only are they breaking the law and fooling themselves they're insulting and risking the life of every road user they come in contact with.

I've been breathalyzed with 3 pints and passed by a gaurd. I also had a very fancy breathalyzer and used it after 4 pints one time and I was .03 BAC, so what going ON Ted????

ArrBee

Calina wrote: »

Read this thread with interest.

I live in Luxembourg.

http://www.lessentiel.lu/fr/luxembourg/story/quatre-permis-retires-pour-alcool-au-volant-15425409

This weekend, 4 drivers had their driving licences confiscated on the spot for excessive blood alcohol levels. This included one driver sleeping in his car.

The penalties are ranked in LU.

Blood alcohol of 0.5% or lower, or breath of 25mgL or lower - ok
0.5 - 0.8 - 145e fine plus 2 points for first offence, else 6 points
0.8-1.2 - 500e fine, 4 points first offence, 6 for repeat.
1.2 or above: automatic loss of licence, fine between 500- 10,000E. 6 points and jail between 8 days and 3 years

The blood alcohol maximum for a whole array of drivers is 0.2%.

.

That system sounds reasonable.
Much better than the way it's gone here.