Councillor wants 'special understanding' for rural drink-drivers

Suaimhneach · 05-01-2006 9:51pm #1

http://breakingnews.ie/2006/01/05/story238107.html - linkage

A Co Clare councillor has said rural dwellers should be excused from drink-driving.

Fianna Fáil Councillor Flan Garvey said people who visit pubs as their only social outlet are familiar with local roads and drive more carefully and slowly, especially when they have had a few drinks.

The elected local authority member has appealed for a "special understanding" to be shown.

He insists he does not condone drink-driving, but wants allowances made for certain people, such as those who live alone, and who would travel just a few miles to the pub once or twice a week.

Can you imagine that... "Sorry, I've just run down and killed someone while drunk, but I am lonley, so it's okay."

Ro: maaan! · 05-01-2006 9:55pm

Meh. I assume that if you knock down and kill someone when you're driving perfectly leagaly and soberly it wouldn't be ok.

flogen · 05-01-2006 9:58pm

Idiot. Pure and simple.
There is no excuse for drink driving. I hate this apologetic culture we have regard drink in Ireland. If he wanted a drink, he doesn't bring his car. If he needed to drive to get there, then he shouldn't be drinking.

Maybe one day people will realise that drinking is not the same thing as being social, in fact it's often the opposite.

flogen · 05-01-2006 9:59pm

Ro: maaan! wrote:

Meh. I assume that if you knock down and kill someone when you're driving perfectly leagaly and soberly it wouldn't be ok.

What do you mean by that?

Ro: maaan! · 05-01-2006 10:09pm

Just that if there was an accident and someone was killed, I doubt this guy is suggesting that the (drunk) driver should just be able to get off because of the "special understanding". Just like if someone was sober and knocked someone down, killing them. It's not like they could just say "Sorry, but I was sober, so what more do you want?" I would assume that it would only apply to drunk driving that was safe. If someone was caught driving under the influence dangerously then they would almost certainly not be as understanding...

A Dub in Glasgo · 05-01-2006 10:21pm

What a reckless and stupid thing for anyone to say nevermind a councillor

flogen · 06-01-2006 1:31am

Ro: maaan! wrote:

I would assume that it would only apply to drunk driving that was safe.

That is an oxymoron.
Look at it this way, this guy is saying we should look the other way as far as rural drink driver going. Now, naturally if an accident were to happen it would still be a big deal, but that would be too late for the victim and their family.
Now we'll have some idiots drink driving saying it's ok once I'm careful, when they're too drunk to know how to be careful. If there are any accidents as a result of drunk driving in rural areas then this guy should be charged as an accessory, he's basically saying we should overlook the law for people in rural areas.
Sure, why not relax gun laws for them too, they probably know more about guns out there and should be better able to handle them.
Sorry, but the law of the Republic of Ireland covers the entire island. No one, especially not a public figure, should excuse someone driving under the influence, they're just asking for trouble.

billy the squid · 06-01-2006 1:37am

have you seen some of the roads in clare? they are dangerous enough to drive on when sober. this councillor needs to get his head out of his rear end.

Suaimhneach · 06-01-2006 1:38am

It really does reflect badly on the whole rural community, as well as the whole of Ireland when someone like that gets elected.

He's probably a lovely old man with nice ideals who drives home drunk and never gets charged cuz hes a councellor.

He's also probably someone who shouldnt be allowed to have a political voice for this country.

walshb · 13-01-2006 12:59pm

Lowlife, must be really hard up for votes...no damn scruples!!!!

Snickers Man · 13-01-2006 7:14pm

The ultra-opinioniated British Columnist Auberon Waugh used to say much the same thing: namely that it was unfair to people such as he and his friends who lived in the shires to have to adhere to the same drink driving laws as anybody else.

His point was that there was less public transport, less opportunity for taxis and greater danger for pedestrians walking to and from rural public houses on country roads than for people who lived in the cities.

So really, the only way they could get to the pub was in a car.

Now his point wasn't that they should be given carte blanche to drive home stewed out of their minds. But I think he wanted a greater tolerance, eg a greater limit of alcohol in the blood stream for people making short journeys in rural areas so that they could indulge in the social life of their community.

When I was a boy, fado fado, there used to be an anti drunk driving ad on the TV which went something like, 'So you pop into the pub after work for a pint. Or maybe two.' then it would show how lager frenzy would kick in you'd drive home pissed and cause a multiple car pile up. The punch line then was: 'When you pop in to the pub for a pint, or maybe two......leave it at that.'

The implication was that two pints were a safe limit. Nowadays they want to say that NO alcohol at all should be the criterion. That's not fair. Nor is it wise. For many people, two pints taken along with food leaves them in a perfectly fair state to drive home, provided they take care.

Remember: dangerous driving is still illegal, regardless of whether you are drunk or sober.

So maybe the mad Clare man has some justification after all.

flogen · 13-01-2006 7:43pm

Snickers Man wrote:

The ultra-opinioniated British Columnist Auberon Waugh used to say much the same thing: namely that it was unfair to people such as he and his friends who lived in the shires to have to adhere to the same drink driving laws as anybody else.

His point was that there was less public transport, less opportunity for taxis and greater danger for pedestrians walking to and from rural public houses on country roads than for people who lived in the cities.

So really, the only way they could get to the pub was in a car.

Now his point wasn't that they should be given carte blanche to drive home stewed out of their minds. But I think he wanted a greater tolerance, eg a greater limit of alcohol in the blood stream for people making short journeys in rural areas so that they could indulge in the social life of their community.

When I was a boy, fado fado, there used to be an anti drunk driving ad on the TV which went something like, 'So you pop into the pub after work for a pint. Or maybe two.' then it would show how lager frenzy would kick in you'd drive home pissed and cause a multiple car pile up. The punch line then was: 'When you pop in to the pub for a pint, or maybe two......leave it at that.'

The implication was that two pints were a safe limit. Nowadays they want to say that NO alcohol at all should be the criterion. That's not fair. Nor is it wise. For many people, two pints taken along with food leaves them in a perfectly fair state to drive home, provided they take care.

Remember: dangerous driving is still illegal, regardless of whether you are drunk or sober.

So maybe the mad Clare man has some justification after all.

But while adverts advise you not to drink at all, the law has a blood/alcohol limit which means that people who only had a glass of wine and some food probably wouldn't be in trouble for drink driving.
The fact is that while some can down a brewery and be able minded, others only need a small drink and they're incapable of speech, even if technically below the legal limit.
Just because you live in the country doesn't mean you can handle your drink any better, the law wasn't set with just city streets in mind.
While I understand that taxis and buses are far less common in some areas than in cities it doesn't justify driving while intoxicated. If you can't get home any other way you either don't drink or else you walk. If you're not willing to walk then that's your own problem.
The fact is that while pubs are often the easiest way for people to socialise, especially in a quiet village in the country, they're not obligitory and so you can't complain about the situation.
Think about it; I decided to go out and get drunk with my mates and I can't drive home, what a disgrace!!
As for one or two pints being alright, I don't drive but I know that after 1 pint, while I'm below the limit and still pretty much sober, my reactions are impared somewhat. Not a lot, but a split second makes a huge difference when driving. It's silly to say it's not fair that you can't have one or two and drive any more, it's just ignorant to assume you won't cause an accident or even make another drivers mistake worse due to your condition.

I agree about dangerous driving though, and perhaps if people didn't drive dangerously while sober the people in the pubs could walk home safely. It still doesn't justify their complaints.

D'Peoples Voice · 11-05-2007 1:35pm

Flan Garvey might be right with his point that people in rural Ireland can handle their drink better, in Dublin, you'd definitely be over the limit with two pints alone, never mind the wine!"

http://breaking.tcm.ie/ireland/?jp=MHAUSNSNQLOJ

Sinn Féin TD Martin Ferris has been cleared of drink driving after being arrested last month on suspicion of being over the legal alcohol limit.

Mr Ferris said at the time that he did not think he was over the limit as he had only had two pints a glass of wine.

r3nu4l · 12-05-2007 6:07pm

The original story smacks of a councillor who is looking for the popular vote! I think that newspapers and websites are right to highlight this kind of idiocy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Whats wrong with a designated driver system or locals chipping in and paying for a minibus to pick everyone up at closing time and drop them all home?

There can be no justification for the idea of special consideration.

Dar · 12-05-2007 9:45pm

r3nu4l wrote:

The original story smacks of a councillor who is looking for the popular vote! I think that newspapers and websites are right to highlight this kind of idiocy.

A democratically elected official pushing an agenda favoured by his constituents, not on my watch!

One has to consider the drinking culture down the country when tackling drunk driving. A huge proportion of country people drink and drive. It is the norm, just as it was the norm in dublin until recent years. While the focus on public transport and designated drivers works for city dwellers, there simply isn't adaquate public transport facilities in country areas for this to be viable. People often live miles apart complicating the designated driver idea.

I am entirely against any form of drunk driving, but we have to recognise that an adaquate solution to these problems must be developed in conjunction with country people before any truly effective crackdown can take place.

r3nu4l · 13-05-2007 12:22am

I'm sorry Dar but that's bullsh1t! I remember as a young 18 year old I visited my uncle in the back-arse of Mayo...about 25 miles from Westport. I knew one of the local lads there and we managed to get a lift from a friend of his to the nightclub in Westport (Castle Court Hotel??).

Anyway, later that night there was a minibus outside waiting for people who lived within 30 miles of Westport. We all piled on and an hour later I was tucked up in bed! The bus made it's way from village to village and remote farmhouse to remote farmhouse and everyone just accepted that it would take time to get home. That was before the days of the Celtic tiger or designated drivers and nitelinks in Dublin!! It worked then so it should damn well work now, no excuses for anyone tbh!

parsi · 13-05-2007 12:28am

flogen wrote:

Sorry, but the law of the Republic of Ireland covers the entire island. No one, especially not a public figure, should excuse someone driving under the influence, they're just asking for trouble.

The law of the Republic of Ireland covers the 26 counties that constitute Ireland. There is a part of the island which is subject to different laws.

flogen · 13-05-2007 11:31am

parsi wrote:

The law of the Republic of Ireland covers the 26 counties that constitute Ireland. There is a part of the island which is subject to different laws.

Apologies - that was a stupid mistake on my part - I obviously meant that the law of the RoI covers every inch of the 26 counties and nothing less than that.

Councillor wants 'special understanding' for rural drink-drivers

Comments