Drink Driving, an alternate view..

ApeXaviour

A friend of mine wrote this and sent it around as an article to our group of friends. His stance is obvious but I will not state whether I am in agreement with him or not. I must stress though that his opinions do not "represent" my own. But in the interest of a good discussion I would appreciate if you replied as if replying to him (thus negating this first paragraph). I'll probably show him some of the replies.

I was just looking at some hoopla about "alcohol related deaths" on our roads,
here's some stuff to bear in mind next time you read those statistics:

1) A measurable amount of alcohol means anything above .00 percent, up to and
including a sip of beer or cough medicine.

2) Drivers impaired by drugs, be it aspirin, cough syrup, crack or heroin, can
be counted as drunk drivers for statistical purposes.

3) If a pedestrian is involved in an accident and has a measurable amount of
alcohol in their system, it is considered alcohol-related.

4) If an accident is a sober driver’s fault (i.e. a sober driver runs a red
light and crashes into a driver who had a beer after work) it is
alcohol-related.

5) If an old empty beer-can is found in the car, an accident is
alcohol-related. Even if the driver currently has a blood alcohol level of 0%.

6) If a passenger has alcohol in his system, an accident is considered alcohol
related.

Now why the hell would any government want to over-inflate the importance of one factor in road deaths like this? Same reason Hitler picked on the jews:
they want a scapegoat.

Granted in recent times the assholes running this place have eased up on
alcohol a little, they're picking on speeding now. Much easier to blur the
statistics there, who the **** measures what speed a car was going at before it crashed? (complex physical analysis of crumple zones you say? "those guys might miscalculate, let's add on 15% to their answers to account for that"...)

Inevitably you're all waiting for Will's Ultimate Answer (assuming anyone's
arsed reading any of this), here's what I think is going on:
1) Our roads are sub-standard compared to other first-world countries
2) They're over-used
3) an awful lot of people here cannot drive well

Sound reasonable? See how fixing those problems would be much harder than
keeping everyone off your back with streams of rhetoric while you line your
pockets as much as possible before your time in office runs out?

I know some of you are leaping up and down thinking "but alcohol dulls your
reaction time! how can you hit the brakes if your reaction time is dulled??
how will? how!"

So does this mean people with slower reaction times shouldn't be allowed to
drive? If I drink two cans how does my reaction time compare with a 65
year-old woman's?

"But what about your concentration? your brain can't process information as
quickly after even one drink!! the ads say so!"

Miss two hours sleep? Listening to the radio? Thinking about breasts (or
testicles i suppose)? Talking to a passenger? Shouting at kids in the back?
Better pull over sunshine, you're losing the concentrational equivilant of
about three drinks.

Incidentely, I apologise if I'm pissing off anyone who knows someone who was
hit by a drunk here, but try to be logical, the guy in question didn't cause
the accident because he was drunk, he caused the accident because he was a bad driver.

I'd love to hear some logical reasons why any of this is wrong. (Incidently,
if anyone turns around and gives me the usual "Oh, so what YOU'RE saying is
that we can all drink 15 pints and go joyriding about the place" routine I'm
not going to speak to you)

woosaysdan

while he does state some good points i think that drink drivers dont get punished enough!!!

seamus

Ultimately a well-phrased mail, but I'd like to see sources for the points on how alcohol-related is calculated in particular. Given the numerous circumstances he's pointed out, the figure for drink-related crashes should be way higher.

apexaviour wrote:

I know some of you are leaping up and down thinking "but alcohol dulls your
reaction time! how can you hit the brakes if your reaction time is dulled??
how will? how!"

So does this mean people with slower reaction times shouldn't be allowed to
drive? If I drink two cans how does my reaction time compare with a 65
year-old woman's?

"But what about your concentration? your brain can't process information as
quickly after even one drink!! the ads say so!"

Miss two hours sleep? Listening to the radio? Thinking about breasts (or
testicles i suppose)? Talking to a passenger? Shouting at kids in the back?
Better pull over sunshine, you're losing the concentrational equivilant of
about three drinks.

Good points. Alcohol does both of the above though, in tandem, and more. It increases one's confidence, removes one's inhibitions (even in small doses), and also increases one's desire to "have fun" (I know that's not a very technical way of putting it).
It's the combination of these that makes it such a dangerous position to put yourself in. Each driver has a responsibility to do as much as they can to ensure that they are not driving dangerously or irresponsibly. A 65-year-old can't do very much to increase their reaction time, all they can do is minimise their loss in reaction time.
Driving when drowsy is dangerous driving. Shouting at the kids in the back is dangerous driving. Chatting to a passenger is dangerous driving. All three could land you in serious trouble in the event of a crash (in fact, for the latter, you'll fail your driving test in the UK).
Even if a normal distraction is the equivalent distraction of three pints, the driver has had no loss of reaction time, no inflated sense of confidence, no loss of depth perception, co-ordination or overall balance, like they would with those three pints on them.
Alcohol is a controllable danger, one that makes everyday tasks difficult generally, and one that one that can be legislated for. Talking to a passenger can't. You can't pull people over because they were talking to a passenger.

Incidentely, I apologise if I'm pissing off anyone who knows someone who was
hit by a drunk here, but try to be logical, the guy in question didn't cause
the accident because he was drunk, he caused the accident because he was a bad driver.

Be that as it may, his chances of causing the accident would have been far less if he had not have been drunk. People see Drink-driving as crossing the boundary from "bad driver" to "complete moron who should never be on the road."

People tolerate "bad drivers" because we see them every day, but all we see are snippets. We accept that they may not necessarily be a bad driver, just someone who has made a mistake. And we all make mistakes. But being caught drunk-driving is the affirmation that indeed, this guy is a consisntently bad driver.

RossFixxxed

You drink and drive, you should never drive again, by force if necessary. I've watched people I love die in front of me. Sorry, but if you're tired you shouldn't drive. If you have ANY drink or feel slightly drowzy you shouldn't drive. But if you're drunk / high or whatever you should not be allowed drive at all.

Ross

Deadwing

While an old lady driver may have a slower reaction time, her mind is still going to be focused, and she'd more than likely be driving slower anyway. Drink drivers would take more risks, be unfocused and generally more dangerous.
Personally, i think anyone who gets into a car while pissed deserves to be boiled alive in a pool of pig excrememnt.

frodi

I agree that govt exagerates and manilupates the figures for PR/public health reasons. That doesn't change the fact that driving with alcohol in your system is stupid and reckless. :mad: Who decides that you with 3 pints are a better driver than the 65 year old? Everybody who is driving should be doing it to the best of their ability and not some dumbed down acceptable ability. For instance which doctor would you prefer, one who strives to do their best and keep to best practice or one who just aims to meet minimum standards?

Blisterman

Well everyone should be paying their maximum attention.

Cake Fiend

I find it mildly disturbing that this lad is trivializing drink-driving like this. What's the point of his argument? If the government's statistics are indeed exaggerated, what's the big problem?

Selik

I agree with Sico on this one.

Governments exaggerate tons of stuff but at the end of the day drinkdriving is simply not on and no amount of stats or other circumstantial puff can change this.

Interestingly on a indirectly related issue when it comes to drugs (illegal & prescription) and government stats they are also equally skewed, ie: Bloke eats a few yoks, has a few beers and does a line of Ketamine. Said bloke later on falls off the top of a streetlight and dies. The death is classed as an E-related one despite the polydrug use and alcohol consumption.

Hmmm... I wonder why they would do that??? :rolleyes:

OfflerCrocGod

I don't understand the point of this, what does the writer want changed? Higher amount of drink units allowed for ppl who are stopped and checked by the Garda??? Were is this heading, what is his point? That the figures are manipulated by the Gov: so even if the figures are there are still accidents/deaths caused by DUI and the lowering of these figures will not change that fact. Incorrect figures don't make drunk driving acceptable.

Victor

Deadwing wrote:

While an old lady driver may have a slower reaction time

And she won't be thinking of boobies, unless her own saggy ones intefere with the gear stick.

Flukey

No one here would approve of someone pissed out of their head, driving a car. I certainly don't. However the guy does make good points, which I have often considered myself, as to what a drink-related accident is. Certainly not every accident where a driver gives a positive sample is as a result of the fact that someone did have a drink. As he says, the sober guy could run into the drunk guy, yet it would be put down as a alcohol-related accident. Accidents happen for many reasons and although some parties to them may have taken a few drinks, that doesn't necessarily mean it is an alcohol-related accident, although it will probably be chalked up as one. A lot of drivers with several drinks on them drive home perfectly safely on a regular basis and do so with driving an awful lot safer than some sober people do. I am sure we have all often been in a car and got a lift home off someone who had been out drinking and you did not for a moment doubt that you would be brought home safely. Basically, it is not all black and white. Lots of so-called drunk-drivers drive home safely. Alcohol can be a factor, but it doesn't outweigh all others in an accident. It could be a case of: maybe if he hadn't had that last pint, he might have reacted a bit quicker, but the other guy would still have ploughed into him. Not all "alcohol-related" accidents are caused by alcohol and would have been avoided if the drivers were sober! That is basically what he is saying, and I don't see any problem with that.

elivsvonchiaing

I don't disagree that blaming road deaths on drink driving is a government conspiracy to hide embarassing truths about our infra-structure - but still don't see a case for raising or lowering the legal blood alcohol level limit. I think most suburban accidents involving alcohol are perpetrated by people - 4-6 times the limit (7 times the limit and you're dead). I base this on what I read in the papers and not from some reliable source. Can't comment on country road deaths.

I think most road deaths are caused by insufficient driver education. The only (un)realistic alternative to what's there now is put every motorist in a movie theatre with their eyes glued open to watch 36 hours of RTA video (Clockwork Orange style).

Where I'm coming from: I had a motorbike accident 8 years ago. As a consequence I'm a much safer driver in a car. Think the pain + anxiety of whether my left arm would ever work again kinda helped this.

What's there right now: a fairly crappy test after an 8- 14 month wait really just says it all. I think at least an hours worth of RTA video should be made mandatory - to at least make people think. The tight fcukers won't even entertain this of course.

gerire

I think the points made in relation to there being alot of bad drivers on the road are very true, you apply for a sriving test after pricticing on a provisional, you go into the test centre, you fail for whatever reason, and you let the instructor out of the car and drive off. WTF you just failed saying you aren't safe enough to drive. I know somebody who has failed 4 times, i wont get in a car with her for fear of adding years to me, and is still free to drive.
Some people just cant drive and more of a hazard than anything[/rant]

Drinking and driving is not excusable under 99% of circumstances

Jamesobrady

I think the drink driving topic is a difficult one to tackle in Ireland.
When i was young and naive i went out with some workmates, one of whom drove us down. I was left alone with him and another guy and didn't know them well but the topic of drink driving was in the bar and we were involved in the conversation. I can't remember the circumstances but i remember asking him something along the lines of what would be his limit when driving....which didn't go down too well with either of them. As it turned out i worked with both of them for 2 years and every night they went out they drove home plastered.
And the scary thing is everyone in Shannon was doing it...everyone.

It seems to be more frowned upon in the east, and by younger people more then older people. My dad drink drives if its less then 3 miles.....my brother started driving today actually and when i rang him at 12 to see where he was he was in the pub having a bottle of beer. Crazy.....I've only been driving 2 years,but its all been cross the country from coast to coast and i've learned that you really need to be ready to react for other peoples mistakes. To me any time of day on irish roads is dangerous.....we've all seen the crazy ill-timed and just plain stupid (1litre cars trying to overtake an artic with oncoming traffic.....artics flashing you to pull in because you're doing the speed limit and they want past you.....all that bull****..list it on and on!)

I think the point the original post was hinting at, or at least how i took it, was that the government and the national road authority scapegoat drink driving as the cause of accident to lessen the blame they are responsible for with the state of the roads, the licensing system, and the enforcement of the driving laws being substandard. Admittedly we don't want a nanny state, or overly strict laws, but to propogate the "blame that guy for everything" line regardless of it being based in a valid highlighting of dangerous driving habits is wrong. That is not to say i support dd..i don't. At all. No excuses.
If the original author was in some sideways defending his own habits(by highlighting what else is wrong.....a "more important stuff then my personal choice" kind of arguement tehn i disagree. Everyone's "personal choice" affects everyone on the roads, directly or indirectly.

Everyone riding a bike faces the same thing....that every biker is a death waiting to happen. Again the actions and riding habits of the minority of people sways the majority opinion. Even bikers get overtaken by bikers in stupid situations....and in fact i would go so far as to say being on a bike is enough encouragement for those same foolish individuals to overtake and ride dangerously and show off their "skillz"........ Boy racers face the same tarring.
I must admit i have an instant waryness for modded cars....especially in drug-riddled sligo.....but i've been let out by a modded car more times at crap junctions then i have regular cars. Add to that i've been revved at at the lights by modded cars when on a bike more times then when in the car and the level of interaction of stereotypes is funny.

Drink driving ...NO......Inappropriate speed limits....NO.....Inappropriate use of speed....NO........Lowest minimum licensing requirements in Europe.....NO......
Lack of public awareness iniatives as regards to car blindspots and Bikes/pedestrians/cyclists/rest of world.....NO......4 Punto's for every other car...NO.......3 of those with L platesand one occupant.....NO......Nissan Micras......NO(learned in one and drove for a year....dangerous steering...brother drives it as of today!) Bikers riding recklessly.....NO.....Bikers riding straight past bikers broken down...NO(if you do that you're only a ....).......Bikers wearing t-shirts and a helmet.....NO(don't give me the "personal choice" crap....you're another injury statistic my premium is based upon)

Things i like on irish roads......
Truckers who pull in for bikes.
Bikers who nod at other bikers.
Girls who let me pull out.
Sligo is a small town and if entered at the right time you can be through it in 3 minutes.
Shannon has no place to do a difficult hill start(did my test there!)
They're building a by-pass for Sligo.
Maynooth has 2 24hr petrol stations. Both get robbed regularly.

Those days when you have to get petrol in a town where the one pump is on the mainstreet and you're in a q of 4 cars so everyone ends up in the shop that owns the pump and the woman who knows where the switch is pumps the petrol "because it's a bit ****ed and there's a knack to it". Same woman will invite you in for a cup of tea if you're doing a long journey on a bike.
Actually.....one time i was warned about the hole in the wall in the narrow bridge.......i couldn't bring myself to tell her that on a narrow bridge with a wall, on a bike the hole would be the preferred option!

So, in closing i love Irish hospitality, obscure as it may be....and that brings my debate to a close.
Now, what was the topic again?

pickarooney

Jamesobrady wrote:

Girls who let me pull out.

Fnaaar, fnaaar!

ballooba

Two questions to the original poster:

1) What age is the guy who wrote that?

2) Does he drive?

Imposter

I agree with a lot of points made in the first post. You also get the line that excessive speed was involved in a large percentage of accidents. In the case when drink (over the limit amount of drink) is also involved here I think the drink should be taken as a contributing factor. In cases where the driver is not over the legal limit I can't understand why anyone would want to distort the statistics by saying drink was a factor. That for me makes a mockery of what publishing the statistics is trying to acheive (a bit like the way the penalty points were introduced but when they forgot to enforce the laws enough).

As for those saying that any alcohol while driving is wrong then I simply cannot agree. That should only exist if every driver is tested yearly for reaction times and driving competence and tested (somehow) for reaction times or levels of tiredness every time they drive or at least in the event of an accident.

When I got my licence I was subject to a 2-year 0.1 limit for alcohol in my bloodstream. This is a sensible measure and it deters new drivers (usually young people) from drinking and driving. Combine with a bit of enforcement and it gets the mindset of these drivers to thinking that driving with alcohol taken is dangerous. Even after the 2 year probation I rarely drink if driving (and then it would be no more than 1 shandy).

ApeXaviour

To answer Balooba, he's 20. The extent of his driving would be heavy duty machinery on a building site. He is in the process of buying a car so no, he does not currently drive. Here was his rebuttle to our replies. The quotations are from myself and another who's replies have been ridiculously similar to the ones in this thread, especially by Sico and like-minded..

Quoting myself:

"Incidently, if anyone turns around and gives me the usual 'Oh, so what YOU'RE saying is that we can all drink 15 pints and go joyriding about the place' routine I'm not going to speak to you"

I'm going to prove myself a liar and reply: See what I'm talking about? Very
few people can discuss this in any kind of even-handed fashion.

As soon as anyone suggests it's ok to have two pints and drive home from the pub, the moral high ground brigade jumps down your neck with a predictable
mixture of anger and rhetoric.

I don't wanna hear about "this atrocious behaviour" or "irresponsible selfish
scum", I wanna hear REASONS people.

You're statistically more likely to be involved in an accident, eh? If throw a
tennis ball at a finite potential barrier of fixed width (such as a brick
wall), there's a statisical possibilty it will tunnel through it with no
change in the wall. Doesn't mean it's going to happen though. [<----See what I'm doing here? Deliberately making a wildly over-exhagerated analogy, I hope the irony is not lost on anyone planning to do the same thing then call
themselves right]

seamus

apexaviour wrote:

You're statistically more likely to be involved in an accident, eh? If throw a tennis ball at a finite potential barrier of fixed width (such as a brick wall), there's a statisical possibilty it will tunnel through it with no
change in the wall. Doesn't mean it's going to happen though. [<----See what I'm doing here? Deliberately making a wildly over-exhagerated analogy, I hope the irony is not lost on anyone planning to do the same thing then call
themselves right]

I fail to see the point, and I assume this is aimed at me. No-one is saying that "Drink-Drive = crash!". But if you drill a few tennis-ball sized holes in that wall, then watch the probability of such a thing occuring shoot up.

There is always, every time you go out on the road, a statistically likely chance that you will be involved in an accident.
Similarly, every time you go for a walk, there is a statistically likely chance that you will stumble, fall, or bump into something.

Now. Put alcohol in the equation. Do you honestly think, after 3 pints, that you are just as statistically likely to stumble, fall, or bump into something on that same walk? Think about the last time you had three pints. Did you do everything with the same co-ordination and finesse you did when you were sober? Is it not blindingly obvious that the chances of making such a mistake shoot up?

Such as it is for driving. It decreases both your concentration and your ability to concentrate. It impairs judgement, co-ordination, depth perception, vision, memory, reaction time, alertness, and your ability to project (cause and effect).
Each of these things is very important when driving, and increases your risk if even one is lacking. Alcohol impairs all of these things. Your risk increases dramatically as a result.

Imposter

seamus wrote:

Now. Put alcohol in the equation. Do you honestly think, after 3 pints, that you are just as statistically likely to stumble, fall, or bump into something on that same walk? Think about the last time you had three pints. Did you do everything with the same co-ordination and finesse you did when you were sober? Is it not blindingly obvious that the chances of making such a mistake shoot up?

Let's say you are just after a big meal (no alcohol). You are more likely to feel tired. Should you not drive then too? I know 3 pints make it illegal to drive but you could have used the same example except you had enough alcohol ot put you just under the legal limit.

seamus

Imposter wrote:

Let's say you are just after a big meal (no alcohol). You are more likely to feel tired. Should you not drive then too? I know 3 pints make it illegal to drive but you could have used the same example except you had enough alcohol ot put you just under the legal limit.

You probably shouldn't drive. In fact most schools of thought recommend that you don't. However, different people act in different ways to large meals. I, for example, am more awake after a large meal. No idea why.

My point though, is that tiredness is only one effect. Alcohol doesn't just make you tired. It has a whole host of other effects which drastically reduce your ability to drive safely. A large meal makes you tired - but you're still just as able to co-ordinate yourself, balance, and see properly, to give just three examples.

ApeXaviour

Ok I'm a wee bit peeved now. I'm after getting some negative reputation points for this.. Things like "ludacris" and "claptrap" have been said in these.
To these people I give a proper 2 fingers up, you stupid stupid people..
You OBVIOUSLY didn't read my post because as I stated that it WAS NOT MY OPINION!! GRRR... I was merely forwarding it here whilst maintaining an unbiased standpoint. I wanted to provoke a good discussion AS I STATED, and which I believed I succeeded at..

elivsvonchiaing

apexaviour wrote:

Ok I'm a wee bit peeved now. I'm after getting some negative reputation points for this.. Things like "ludacris" and "claptrap" have been said in these.
To these people I give a proper 2 fingers up, you stupid stupid people..
You OBVIOUSLY didn't read my post because as I stated that it WAS NOT MY OPINION!! GRRR... I was merely forwarding it here whilst maintaining an unbiased standpoint. I wanted to provoke a good discussion AS I STATED, and which I believed I succeeded at..

Strikes me there a plenty of people here who take a dislike to a post. Take from your reputation, and never even bother to return to that thread to see what you have to say for yourself. Can well understand your annoyance here.

impr0v

Sico wrote:

If the government's statistics are indeed exaggerated, what's the big problem?

I think some of the point was the Government's tendancy to over-exaggerate the influence of the twin evils of drink-driving and speed on the road fatality figures, so as to lay the blame for the carnage on the doorstep of the great anonymous public who are speeding and driving while loaded. Doing so takes the focus off the national disgrace which is the driver licensing system, enforcement, and to a lesser extent the poor state of the infrastructure, all of which contribute debatable but almost certainly substantial amounts to the amount of fatal crashes. Therefore, a large amount of the negative publicity of the mounting road deaths tally is deflected from the government and back onto the nameless faceless people who are really causing the carnage.

I think it's possible to make this argument without trivialising either drink driving, or speeding, which are both highly irresponsible and selfish acts.

Steps are been taken when it comes to infrastructure, and I won't restate arguments I've made on the motors forum about this, but I personally feel that the largest factor in the destruction is the poor state of the nations drivers, and certainly, the licensing system has to take some of the blame for this.

The argument about untested and failed drivers being allowed onto the roads for an indefinite period (including the odd failed test every few years) makes itself and doesn't need to be restated, but the political will and money needed to sort the mess out seems to be beyond this particular government, and to be fair to them, all the ones that have gone before it. A nation that will give an amnesty (a free licence) to all those in the queue for testing, as the government of the time did in the 80's, doesn't place too high a value on the safety of it's citizens on the roads.

The current waiting times for driving tests are a joke, these queues should be reduced to next or near zero as a matter of priority, and then use the availability of almost immediate testing as a carrot, and then a stick, to get provisional drivers off the road. Following that, I personally feel that all drivers should be retested at regular, say five or ten year periods, but god knows when we would have the efficiency to process that many drivers. It might be harsh, but I think as a nation we've proved with our murderous ways that we need it.

Enforcement is another big issue which needs addressing, but again both the money and the concrete political will are lacking. There is plenty of lip service to a traffic corps, but it seems Templemore cannot increase it's output without major, pick-a-wild-figure-and-double-it, upgrading. There are, of course, ways around this if the will is there.

And then, a much larger issue, in this brave new world of only licensed drivers on the road there has to be a functional public transport network to provide an alternative to all those people who need to get to work, but cannot pass the test, and therefore cannot pilot a car on their own. But we all know how much Luas lines, bus lanes and train tracks cost.

There's plenty of problems to be fixed, but I don't see how it makes sense to add to these by allowing someone with two cans on boards to drive, if that is what the original poster's friend is suggesting. Fair enough, your reactions following these cans may be similar to those of a 65 year old lady, but alcohol affects more that your reactions, it leads to you concentrating on small aspects of the information you are taking in as a driver, rather than the big picture. The old lady's reaction will probably allow her to stop in time, as she's driving slower and in control, where as the alcohol influenced driver is focusing on his speed, or directly on the road in front, and doesn't see the accident coming. And if his point is that the 65 year old woman is not capable of driving because her reflexes have deteriorated too much, then surely the solution is to take her off the road, rather than allow someone else possessing similarly bad reactions onto it too.

Capt'n Midnight

People will take a certain level of risk. By making things safer for the driver (air bags / seat belts / SUV's etc.) their percieved risk to themselves drops, so they tend to drive more dangerously because they don't see it as being dangerous. The classis example being the canadian railroad clearing of trees at remote level crossings, drivers just drove faster because they could see further..

A problem with drinking (drugs/distractions/tiredness etc.) is that not only is your capacity to drive safely impaired but so too is your risk assesment. Older people who have slower reactions can get cheaper insurance because they take less risks and anticipate further. Not all of them of course , trying to intiate a proposal for having a driving test every ten years would go down like a blimp filled with depleted uranium.

Everyone knows the stereotype drunk who drives at 20mph because they are "being careful", no one would argue that they are just as safe as a normal driver.