Are the new drink driving laws working?

Hifiman · 06-06-2012 10:16am #1

According to my calculations, road deaths have increased (by about 13) in the seven months since the drink drive limit was lowered when compared with the same period in the previous year! (The new limits came into force just before the October Bank Holiday last year.) As you can see from the official Garda figures below, four more people died in November 2011(compared with November 2010) and eight more people died in December 2011 compared with the previous year.

As of today, 75 people have died on the roads so far in 2012 - that's one more than the same period last year.

If this trend continues, road deaths will go up this year for the first time in about 8 years. Put this another way, the big drop in road deaths took place while the old limit was in place, (and without the so called "safety cameras") while fatalities have increased since the limit was lowered! (just to reapeat - about 13 more deaths since the limit was lowered compared to the same period in the previous year.) The reason I'm bringing this up is, that the RSA would have been very quick to point out if there had been a decrease, but the opposite has happened. There was a very heated debate here about the effectiveness of lower limits - but deaths have increased since the limit was lowered. Any opinions as to why? Have the RSA got it wrong - by exaggerating the effectiveness of lower limits?

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=138

JustinDee · 06-06-2012 10:55am

In Monthly Comparisons of web page you give:
Total number of fatalities from January to June in 2012 is 75.
In 2011 using same timeframe, it is actually 88 and not 67. Add them yourself and see.

The summary figure is just incorrectly displayed. There are 13 less fatalities than last year.

Bottom line is that Irish drivers are still as effing woeful as ever, and that the police need a greater and more effective presence on the roads. I've driven in a fair few countries and across different continents. For a so-called civilised country, Irish drivers tend to be overwhelmingly dangerous, lazy and dumb. Still don't get roundabouts, overtaking lanes, slip roads or how to actually handle a car in a car park or service station. As for mobiles when driving or drink driving, some people never learn. They need to be mollycoddled to know that they are in fact breaking the law.

You really can't tell Paddy to do anything.

Hifiman · 06-06-2012 11:22am

JustinDee wrote: »

In Monthly Comparisons of web page you give:
Total number of fatalities from January to June in 2012 is 75.
In 2011 using same timeframe, it is actually 88 and not 67. Add them yourself and see.

The summary figure is just incorrectly displayed. There are 13 less fatalities than last year.

Bottom line is that Irish drivers are still as effing woeful as ever, and that the police need a greater and more effective presence on the roads. I've driven in a fair few countries and across different continents. For a so-called civilised country, Irish drivers tend to be overwhelmingly dangerous, lazy and dumb. Still don't get roundabouts, overtaking lanes, slip roads or how to actually handle a car in a car park or service station. As for mobiles when driving or drink driving, some people never learn. They need to be mollycoddled to know that they are in fact breaking the law.

You really can't tell Paddy to do anything.

My figures are correct. You are using the figure for the whole month of June whereas I'm using the figure for the year to date (as on the Garda website). (June 2012 is not over yet!)

JustinDee · 06-06-2012 12:12pm

Hifiman wrote: »

My figures are correct. You are using the figure for the whole month of June whereas I'm using the figure for the year to date (as on the Garda website). (June 2012 is not over yet!)

As incomplete year, then go to end of May instead of a subjectively cherry picked and tilted balance.

Up to end May 2011, 73 fatalities.
Up to end May 2012, 69 fatalities.
Progress.
Use June when June is done. There are all sorts of mitigating circumstances, which varyeach year such as when a particular bank holiday lies, or how the weather goes etc.

Arguing that laws on drinking when driving should be eased up is a tad futile, in my opinion. If anything there should be zero-tolerance. This country needs to bloody well grow up when it comes to this subject given what I've seen myself in the likes of Sligo, Mayo and Donegal or even a more policed Dublin.

Hifiman · 06-06-2012 1:09pm

JustinDee wrote: »

As incomplete year, then go to end of May instead of a subjectively cherry picked and tilted balance.

Up to end May 2011, 73 fatalities.
Up to end May 2012, 69 fatalities.
Progress.
Use June when June is done. There are all sorts of mitigating circumstances, which varyeach year such as when a particular bank holiday lies, or how the weather goes etc.

Arguing that laws on drinking when driving should be eased up is a tad futile, in my opinion. If anything there should be zero-tolerance. This country needs to bloody well grow up when it comes to this subject given what I've seen myself in the likes of Sligo, Mayo and Donegal or even a more policed Dublin.

I'm not cherry-picking. The Garda website gives the to up to date figure and compares it with deaths in the same period last year. It's significant that half way though the year, the number of fatalities has exceeded last year (for the same period). I pointed out that the trend started in November just after the drink drive limits were lowered....starting at that point to date, there are 13 more deaths over the same period when compared with the year before....the monthly figures don't matter all that much but the trend does and it's upwards and has been since the limits were lowered.

There are valid reasons for questioning the policy of lowering the limits. But don't take my word for it. The Canadian Traffic Injury Research Foundation have done a study and concluded that lowering limits may not be effective:

http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/BAC_Limits.pdf

4.2.2. A lower BAC limit simply does not have an impact

Another possible explanation of why the research has failed to detect a strong,consistent effect of a lower limit is that lowering the legal BAC limit is simply not a potent enough intervention to have a measurable impact on alcohol-related traffic crashes. In many ways, lowering the BAC limit is a measure directed at the wrong group of drivers.

To have an impact on crashes, a countermeasure must operate in such a way as to prevent drinking drivers who are most likely to crash, from driving after drinking – or at least, to prevent them from driving after consuming too much alcohol

The majority of drivers involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes typically have BACs in excess of 150 mg/dL, well in excess of existing BAC limits. The behaviour of this group of drivers has been the most difficult to change with any type of drinking-driving countermeasure. There is certainly no reason to believe that the introduction of a lowerBAC limit would somehow cause these drivers to obey the new limit when they fail to comply with the existing limit.

JustinDee · 06-06-2012 2:10pm

Hifiman wrote: »

I'm not cherry-picking. The Garda website gives the to up to date figure and compares it with deaths in the same period last year. It's significant that half way though the year, the number of fatalities has exceeded last year (for the same period). I pointed out that the trend started in November just after the drink drive limits were lowered....starting at that point to date, there are 13 more deaths over the same period when compared with the year before....the monthly figures don't matter all that much but the trend does and it's upwards and has been since the limits were lowered.

There are valid reasons for questioning the policy of lowering the limits. But don't take my word for it. The Canadian Traffic Injury Research Foundation . . . etc etc

That is one opinion piece/survey. One . . . from over a decade ago.
Also in addition there was the famous coroner in Donegal who voiced concern over the drink-driving limits before. What he neglected to mention was that he had direct relatives who were pub-owners. In fact, you'll find most of the objections are made above all else by bodies involved with those whose pocket it affects or those business sectors themselves.

Try something more up to date like the RSA's actual facts or the piece from The Lancet towards the end of last year on this very subject. For every tilted article you link up, there is easily an equivalent stating the opposite.

Tragedy · 06-06-2012 2:37pm

JustinDee wrote: »

That is one opinion piece/survey. One . . . from over a decade ago.
Also in addition there was the famous coroner in Donegal who voiced concern over the drink-driving limits before. What he neglected to mention was that he had direct relatives who were pub-owners. In fact, you'll find most of the objections are made above all else by bodies involved with those whose pocket it affects or those business sectors themselves.

Try something more up to date like the RSA's actual facts or the piece from The Lancet towards the end of last year on this very subject. For every tilted article you link up, there is easily an equivalent stating the opposite.

There is plenty of statistical/empirical research that suggests that enforcement of existing BAC limits is far more important than lowering the BAC limit. Do you have any research/evidence on the amount of deaths caused on Irish roads by drivers between 50mg and 80mg BAC that were caused by their having alcohol in their system? Do you have any research/evidence from anywhere else that shows statistics on road deaths by a)accident cause(i.e. drink related) and b)likely BAC level? No? That would be because they don't exist and the limit was reduced for illogical reasons not backed up by research.

Drink driving = bad
Ergo
Lowering drink driving limit = good

Very logical!

JustinDee · 06-06-2012 3:19pm

Tragedy wrote: »

Drink driving = bad
Ergo
Lowering drink driving limit = good

Very logical!

Yes, it is quite logical and a good start. If only there was enough for effective enforcement of these laws that get flounted by Irish drivers so much. Coupled with education on alcohol usage, BAC limits prove very effective.

Check out the NHS website. Good article there http://www.nice.org.uk/media/3FE/1A/BloodAlcoholContentEffectivenessReview.pdf

Also try out the RSA's actual website for more, or UK govt's website here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/460/ddd37.htm

WHO: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/74702/E82969.pdf

ICAP: http://www.icap.org/portals/0/download/all_pdfs/icap_reports_english/report11.pdf

This was a quick search done on a phone for you. The Lancet article blew a lot of the industry sponsored contrarianisms out of the water last year. If you can get your hands on it, I recommend it as a read.

SeanW · 08-06-2012 3:06am

JustinDee wrote: »

Arguing that laws on drinking when driving should be eased up is a tad futile, in my opinion. If anything there should be zero-tolerance. This country needs to bloody well grow up when it comes to this subject given what I've seen myself in the likes of Sligo, Mayo and Donegal or even a more policed Dublin.

It sounds like you're making an argument for better enforcement, rather than lower limits. Whatever craziness you've seen in the Northwest and "even" Dublin, I would imagine that it's likely to be people who are driving totally tanked up, rather than someone in the 50-80 mg/ml range.

Let me be clear - I do not support "drink-driving." My problem is with lowering limits and making more severe laws just for the sake of it, a problem I have not just in this area, but in many areas of life.

Hifiman · 08-06-2012 7:31am

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, it is quite logical and a good start. If only there was enough for effective enforcement of these laws that get flounted by Irish drivers so much. Coupled with education on alcohol usage, BAC limits prove very effective.

Check out the NHS website. Good article there http://www.nice.org.uk/media/3FE/1A/BloodAlcoholContentEffectivenessReview.pdf

Also try out the RSA's actual website for more, or UK govt's website here http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtran/writev/460/ddd37.htm

WHO: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/74702/E82969.pdf

ICAP: http://www.icap.org/portals/0/download/all_pdfs/icap_reports_english/report11.pdf

This was a quick search done on a phone for you. The Lancet article blew a lot of the industry sponsored contrarianisms out of the water last year. If you can get your hands on it, I recommend it as a read.

Those reports are far from conclusive - with many calling for more enforcement rather than lower limits - this from page 182 of the first one:

The submission recommended that the criminal code BAC limit of 0.08 should not be changed but that provinces should be encouraged to strengthen roadside suspension, as proposed in the model programme.

walshb · 08-06-2012 7:44am

All this talk about one pint, two pints, tired, empty stomach blah blah blah. Simple; If you are driving, do not ingest alcohol. Every person is different and alcohol effects people differently. We have to draw a line. I don't even think of limits and milligrammes. I just don't freaking drink.

How any half decent and responsible and kind person could live with themselves if they killed or maimed someone because just maybe that one pint had slightly impaired them and made them that slight bit less reactive to a situation. That is what we're talking about here. One pint or half of one pint can have an effect on a person's driving efficiency.

Why take the risk? You intend to drink, don't drive!

Fr Tod Umptious · 08-06-2012 9:17am

walshb wrote: »

All this talk about one pint, two pints, tired, empty stomach blah blah blah. Simple; If you are driving, do not ingest alcohol. Every person is different and alcohol effects people differently. We have to draw a line. I don't even think of limits and milligrammes. I just don't freaking drink.

How any half decent and responsible and kind person could live with themselves if they killed or maimed someone because just maybe that one pint had slightly impaired them and made them that slight bit less reactive to a situation. That is what we're talking about here. One pint or half of one pint can have an effect on a person's driving efficiency.

Why take the risk? You intend to drink, don't drive!

That sums it up.

Rather than splitting hairs about limits just don't drink if you are going to drive.

Same goes for mobile phones, if you don't have a hands free or a bluetooth then just don't pick up the phone while driving the car.

creedp · 08-06-2012 9:36am

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That sums it up.

Rather than splitting hairs about limits just don't drink if you are going to drive.

Same goes for mobile phones, if you don't have a hands free or a bluetooth then just don't pick up the phone while driving the car.

I'll add to that list .. don't drive if you are tired; don't talk to your passengers, especially your children while driving; Do not use a GPS while driving; do not eat, drink, smoke while driving. The point is nearly everything we do in a car distracts us from the core job of focusing on driving and could ultimately contribute to a crash causing injury or death .. yet we ignore most of these and get evangelical about some.

LowOdour · 05-07-2012 12:51pm

Reading up on drinking driving limits, and im slighly confused!

Im going out for an hour tonight, and want to have one bottle of beer over that hour. im 5'8, 15 stone....how do I calculate if im going to be over the 50mg drink driving limit? I'd more than likely abstain from it, but was wondering what I need to take in to consideration if I do

ART6 · 05-07-2012 1:53pm

LowOdour wrote: »

Reading up on drinking driving limits, and im slighly confused!

Im going out for an hour tonight, and want to have one bottle of beer over that hour. im 5'8, 15 stone....how do I calculate if im going to be over the 50mg drink driving limit? I'd more than likely abstain from it, but was wondering what I need to take in to consideration if I do

No reliable way of knowing as I understand it. Let's face it, the anti-alcohol brigade want you to be criminalised if you even read the label of a Guinness bottle. The way in which you convert alcohol will depend on whether you are male or female, whether or not you have eaten during the time of drinking, and whether or not you already have some alcohol in your blood from earlier drinks some long time before, or even as a result of taking some medicines that you may not realise contain alcohol.

All of this is, of course, the reactions of politicians to the demands of the puritans, who require that we all give up anything that causes pleasure even if harmful to us. It takes the simplistic view of the ignorant that we must restrict the freedoms of the many for the sins of the few. It is in the same vein as the cretin who wants to ban tobacco sales throughout Europe since he has concluded that it is bad for us. He, of course, is of such obviously superior intelligence that we should all bow to his whim.

I have posted before in this thread that I have upon occasion driven to the local pub two miles away down a rural road, and have enjoyed a couple of glasses with friends, but knowing that I had to drive my wife home, I stuck to two glasses. This resulted in my being flamed by the puritans who insisted that after two glasses I would no longer be in control and would continue to drink until I fell off my chair. I find that deeply offensive, particularly since I have driven high performance cars and HGVs all over Europe and the USA for fifty years without ever even earning a parking ticket! I would guess a b***dy sight more than the flamers have ever done.

So, your post is inevitably going to earn you some serious flaming. What you won't get is any sensible advice! Bring on the gods of righteousness!

southsiderosie · 05-07-2012 2:27pm

MOD NOTE:

Since the original thread was from 2009, and many of those posters are not even on boards anymore, I've closed the old thread and moved the 2012 posts into a new thread.

In the future, if you want to start a thread on a topic, and the last thread on it was from three years ago, feel free to start a new thread!

SeanW · 06-07-2012 5:11pm

LowOdour wrote: »

Reading up on drinking driving limits, and im slighly confused!

Im going out for an hour tonight, and want to have one bottle of beer over that hour. im 5'8, 15 stone....how do I calculate if im going to be over the 50mg drink driving limit? I'd more than likely abstain from it, but was wondering what I need to take in to consideration if I do

As ART6 said, no real way to be sure. If you are going to have a drink though, I'd suggest eating plenty beforehand and giving it some time before driving.

SeanW · 06-07-2012 5:14pm

Hifiman wrote: »

Another possible explanation of why the research has failed to detect a strong,consistent effect of a lower limit is that lowering the legal BAC limit is simply not a potent enough intervention to have a measurable impact on alcohol-related traffic crashes. In many ways, lowering the BAC limit is a measure directed at the wrong group of drivers.

To have an impact on crashes, a countermeasure must operate in such a way as to prevent drinking drivers who are most likely to crash, from driving after drinking – or at least, to prevent them from driving after consuming too much alcohol

The majority of drivers involved in fatal alcohol-related crashes typically have BACs in excess of 150 mg/dL, well in excess of existing BAC limits. The behaviour of this group of drivers has been the most difficult to change with any type of drinking-driving countermeasure. There is certainly no reason to believe that the introduction of a lowerBAC limit would somehow cause these drivers to obey the new limit when they fail to comply with the existing limit.

QFT !!

ART6 · 06-07-2012 8:58pm

Technology is the only real answer, and it exists. Require that all motor vehicles be fitted with a breathalyser device that prevents the engine from starting if the breath alcohol level exceeds a certain limit. That stops the lunatics who will try to drive when slammed, and the detection level could then be set to one which permits sensible drivers to enjoy some social life. That places humans in a position where they have to obey the dictates of mechanical devices, but we do that with traffic lights. Unfortunately the evangelical brigade would climb onto the bandwagon and demand that the devices also reacted to tobacco and anything else that happens to be their particular hobby horse.

The present system is a nonsense with the simplistic approach beloved of politicians who have a lot of mouth but little brain.

Are the new drink driving laws working?

Comments