[Article] Breath tests 'necessary', says Safety Council

Victor

11 dead in 3 days.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1121/rta1.html

Breath tests 'necessary', says Safety Council
21 November 2005 22:19

The acting head of the National Safety Council has said that mandatory breath testing of road drivers is 'absolutely necessary' to prevent people from drinking and driving.

On RTÉ's Six One News, Alan Richardson outlined measures he said the Government needed to introduce to tackle the rising number of road deaths.

The call comes after a high level of road fatalities in the past few days.

A man was killed in a road accident in Co Longford this morning. The accident happened shortly before 10am in Ballymahon.

A number of other people were involved in the accident but their injuries are not thought to be life-threatening.


In Co Donegal, Liam Kelly of Ardlaghan, Cloghan, who was in his 40s, was killed in a crash at Tullyhonour, Breenagh, Letterkenny, last night.

He was a passenger in the car and was pronounced dead at the scene. Three other people in the car received minor injuries. There were no other vehicles involved in the crash.

Probe into Co Limerick accident

An investigation is under way into the circumstances surrounding the death of 12-year-old Jonathan Grace of Rose Cottage, Wood Road, Limerick, in an accident in Co Limerick last night.

It happened at around 10.20pm in the townland of Woodpark, Castleconnell, just beyond the Daly's Cross junction on the main Limerick-Dublin road.

The junction is an extremely busy one as it leads cars from the main road into the village of Castleconnell.

It is understood the boy was crossing the road just yards from his home when he was struck by a car and was killed instantly.

In west Dublin last night, 28-year-old Arum Khanna of Linden Apartments, Drumgeely, Co Clare, who was originally from India, was killed when he was knocked down by a bus.

It happened on the N4 Dublin-to-Sligo road near the interchange with the M50 just before 8pm.

Gardaí said Mr Khanna had just got out of a car when he was struck by a Bus Éireann coach carrying passengers.


Laois victims named

And the three people killed in Saturday's road crash at Stradbally, Co Laois have been named.

They were husband and wife Nicole and Patrick Kelly, both aged 70, from Drum Road, Summerhill, Co Roscommon, and 71-year-old Andrew Bealin, an American national from New York.

Mr Bealin was a cousin of Mr Kelly's. The collision occurred at Money Cross, Stradbally at 10.40am and involved a truck and a car.

BrianD

I am always mystified how sensible laws that are place in other countries can not be introduced in this country.

It is time for:

A - A reduction of the blood alcohol level down to 0.5 as in other countries.

B - Introduction of random breath testing on a 24 hour basis.

Why do we have Gardai wasting time on tax/insurance inspections when this can be done by a private company without leaving a building.

Why do w have ministers who make a big deal about introducing motor way barriers when the real issues of drink-driving, enforcement and driver education is ignored

HelterSkelter

BrianD wrote:

I am always mystified how sensible laws that are place in other countries can not be introduced in this country.

It is time for:

A - A reduction of the blood alcohol level down to 0.5 as in other countries.

Not necessary in my opinion, anytime I read of someone being convicted for drink driving they are two or three times over the current blood alcohol limit. I don't think reducing the limit will save any more lives

BrianD wrote:

B - Introduction of random breath testing on a 24 hour basis.

Agreed.

BrianD wrote:

Why do we have Gardai wasting time on tax/insurance inspections when this can be done by a private company without leaving a building.

True. If you don't pay your tax renewal within one month and don't inform the motor tax office your car is off the road/sold/whatever you should automatically get a fine.

BrianD wrote:

Why do w have ministers who make a big deal about introducing motor way barriers when the real issues of drink-driving, enforcement and driver education is ignored

Oh jesus, don't start on about the crash barriers again, how many times do you feel you need to make that point????

Victor

BrianD wrote:

Why do we have Gardai wasting time on tax/insurance inspections when this can be done by a private company without leaving a building.

Tax/insurance inspections are used as a lever to carry out other inspections (drink driving, serious crime, ...)

BrianD

Victor wrote:

Tax/insurance inspections are used as a lever to carry out other inspections (drink driving, serious crime, ...)

Fine but this is not the norm in other countries where there is more proactive policing. I have never seem an American or an Australian cop mounting a tax/insurance check point in the middle of the road. I have seen them do random breath tests (where every one gets checked) and randomly pulling cars (I got breath tested twice in twelve months while in Australia - this should become the norm for Irish drivers). They are also more alert in checking people who even carry out even minor infringements - the broken tail light approach. Right now the Gardai can radio in and check up on any vehicle reg and are told if the tax is paid, insurance is out of date, speeding fines etc. So why bother with the check points.

helter skelter, I accept your point but I believe that by reducing the blood alcohol level the option of even having one drink will not be viable for most people who are driving. This is what we went to achieve. The lower allowance should mean that there will be tolerance for any residual alcohol if you get stopped at 830 in the morning. Of course, all of it is meaningless if there is no realistic enforcement.

egan007

Safety is going way over the top these days
It's amazing we got this far at all!

Calina

BrianD wrote:

helter skelter, I accept your point but I believe that by reducing the blood alcohol level the option of even having one drink will not be viable for most people who are driving. This is what we went to achieve. The lower allowance should mean that there will be tolerance for any residual alcohol if you get stopped at 830 in the morning. Of course, all of it is meaningless if there is no realistic enforcement.

somewhere recently I came across a study from France which suggested that even at the legal limit, you were twice as likely to be involved in an accident. Can't find the link though...

Victor

egan007 wrote:

Safety is going way over the top these days
It's amazing we got this far at all!

Road traffic accidents cost nearly 400 lives and €2bn per year. Reason enough

Seth Brundle

Seemingly the delays are down to fine tuning the legislation so it doesn't impede on civil liberties.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/11/23/story231644.html

Victor

kbannon wrote:

Seemingly the delays are down to fine tuning the legislation so it doesn't impede on civil liberties.
http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/11/23/story231644.html

Oddly then drugs legislation allows anyone to be stopped and search quite easily.

J.R.HARTLEY

i don't understand the idea of random bretah tests, is this to stop people that aren't driving erraticaly and test them anyway.


i think reducing the level would have a big impact on the amount of people drink driving, quite a few people risk one pint when in the car, if the level was lowered it wouldn't be worth it. a lot of people just wouldn't bother.this would be an improvement in safety, not major but still if it saves one life.

Victor

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

i don't understand the idea of random bretah tests, is this to stop people that aren't driving erraticaly and test them anyway.

Yes, test everyone.

Seth Brundle

Victor wrote:

Oddly then drugs legislation allows anyone to be stopped and search quite easily.

yes but middle class people don't take drugs!

Hotblack Desiato

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

i don't understand the idea of random bretah tests, is this to stop people that aren't driving erraticaly and test them anyway.

If someone is visibly driving erratically they're likely to be 2 or 3 times over the limit.
But then, some people drive erratically when stone cold sober...

i think reducing the level would have a big impact on the amount of people drink driving

No, it just shifts the goalposts by making what is now legal a crime.

quite a few people risk one pint when in the car

Me included, occasionally, and I won't lightly give that up in deference to wooly-headed PC 'safety' thinking.

To be brutally honest, if people drink one pint and drive carefully, so what?

If they drive carelessly they're a danger even if stone cold sober.

At the present limit the risk of an accident doubles, but it's still very low. It's only after that point that the risk due to drinking goes up exponentially.

You can very easily more than double your accient risk by talking on the phone, or driving when tired.

The persistent drink drivers don't care what the limit is, they're way over it anyway. Only real fear of being caught will deter these guys. Hard to do in rural Ireland, and they know it.

this would be an improvement in safety, not major but still if it saves one life.

The 'if it saves one life it's worth it' line can be trotted out to justify all sorts of dumb or counterproductive ideas. After all, we could save hundreds of lives by just banning cars... simple, no?

It's all about cost versus benefit versus police and judicial time that could be better spent elsewhere than persecuting one pint drivers.

If we can get the vast majority of Irish drivers to respect the existing limit then there will be a dramatic safety improvement.

Victor

ninja900 wrote:

If someone is visibly driving erratically they're likely to be 2 or 3 times over the limit.

Not necessarily. Jim McDaid was twice(?) the limit and driving the wrong side of a dual carriageway.

BrianD

ninja900 wrote:

If someone is visibly driving erratically they're likely to be 2 or 3 times over the limit.
But then, some people drive erratically when stone cold sober...

No, it just shifts the goalposts by making what is now legal a crime.

Me included, occasionally, and I won't lightly give that up in deference to wooly-headed PC 'safety' thinking.

To be brutally honest, if people drink one pint and drive carefully, so what?

If they drive carelessly they're a danger even if stone cold sober.

At the present limit the risk of an accident doubles, but it's still very low. It's only after that point that the risk due to drinking goes up exponentially.

You can very easily more than double your accient risk by talking on the phone, or driving when tired.

The persistent drink drivers don't care what the limit is, they're way over it anyway. Only real fear of being caught will deter these guys. Hard to do in rural Ireland, and they know it.


The 'if it saves one life it's worth it' line can be trotted out to justify all sorts of dumb or counterproductive ideas. After all, we could save hundreds of lives by just banning cars... simple, no?

It's all about cost versus benefit versus police and judicial time that could be better spent elsewhere than persecuting one pint drivers.

If we can get the vast majority of Irish drivers to respect the existing limit then there will be a dramatic safety improvement.

In regard to your opinion of "one for the road is OK" I can safely say that it is absolute rubbish. All scientific, medical evidence and common sense will support this.

Put it this way. If you were going into hospital and was told the surgeon had just the one for lunch ... think it would be OK? Then again the MRSA would probably kill you faster.

Hotblack Desiato

Victor wrote:

Not necessarily. Jim McDaid was twice(?) the limit and driving the wrong side of a dual carriageway.

You sure he was only twice? Given that he was reported to have been drinking for most of the day...

The point is that most people at the present limit aren't going to be all over the road, their driving IS adversely affected but it's usually in more subtle ways. There'd be no point introducing random breath testing if all the drink-drivers were easily spotted.

BrianD wrote:

In regard to your opinion of "one for the road is OK" I can safely say that it is absolute rubbish. All scientific, medical evidence and common sense will support this.

Put it this way. If you were going into hospital and was told the surgeon had just the one for lunch ... think it would be OK? Then again the MRSA would probably kill you faster.

Ridiculous analogy tbh. First off, you (or the health service) is paying the surgeon for his professional services so you're entitled have a reasonable expectation he'll be stone cold sober while doing so (although junior doctors have been known to be hungover on duty occasionally....) Just as I would expect a bus, train or taxi driver to be completely sober - it's a matter of professionalism. People's lives aren't at stake in my job but I still can't drink on duty. Secondly, driving a car is a complex activity but nothing like as complex as flying a plane or performing an operation.

Perfect safety is impossible, and if that were the goal then very few of us would have a hope of getting a licence in the first place.

There's no point going overboard about the risk from one drink when the risk from many, legal, everyday activities is far higher.

All I ask is that the drivers I share the road with are reasonably competent, reasonably well trained, paying a reasonable level of attention to their surroundings and within the existing alcohol limit. And PUT THAT DAMN MOBILE DOWN. Jeez.

We have such a large problem here with habitual and heavy drink/drivers that the impact (no pun intended) of the one-pinters is all but irrelevant. If we can eradicate the drivers who exceed the 80mg limit, and still have a problem with alcohol involvement in a significant number of road accidents, then by all means we should investigate lowering the limit. But for most people, one pint won't put them near 80mg anyway.

Lowering the limit now would just penalise responsible, law-abiding motorists and have no effect at all on the habitual limit breakers. It's in a similar vein as calling for reduced speed limits - inconveniencing a vast number of people to reduce risk marginally, while ignoring the problems which cause the majority of deaths and injuries.

BrianD

This is the typical Irish approach to the problem ... ignore it or deflect it.

Consuming alcohol before driving a motor vehicle is irresponsible and is not what I would call law abiding in the context of ones personal responsibility when living in a community.

You have really said it all ... you really are one of those "super motorists" to whom normal rules don't need to be applied. Blissful ignorance.

HelterSkelter

ninja900 wrote:

If we can eradicate the drivers who exceed the 80mg limit, and still have a problem with alcohol involvement in a significant number of road accidents, then by all means we should investigate lowering the limit. But for most people, one pint won't put them near 80mg anyway.

I gotta agree 100% with you there. I think reducing the limit even more is a waste of time, what we need to do is enforce the laws we already have.

HelterSkelter

BrianD wrote:

This is the typical Irish approach to the problem ... ignore it or deflect it.

Consuming alcohol before driving a motor vehicle is irresponsible and is not what I would call law abiding in the context of ones personal responsibility when living in a community.

You have really said it all ... you really are one of those "super motorists" to whom normal rules don't need to be applied. Blissful ignorance.

Brian, what are you talking about, did you even read his post? He never argued in favour of braking any rules or laws. He is making the valid point that there is no point in getting all hung up on reducing the 80mg level even more when there are many other driving habits that are more likely to cause serious accidents.

ballooba

BrianD wrote:

I have never seem an American or an Australian cop mounting a tax/insurance check point in the middle of the road.

Lets not follow the example of the US on drink driving. Their attitude is horrific.

D'Peoples Voice

ballooba wrote:

Lets not follow the example of the US on drink driving. Their attitude is horrific.

Funny you should say that, but I spoke to some off duty gardai about their whole opinion of the drink driving thing, their attitude is that no-one in the station would ever like to be seen to be "doing" someone for only having a pint or two!
They felt that it would work against their work to try to promote tolerance of the Gardai by the surrounding community. They said that if they were to obey the rules of law to the letter, then this would create a resentment feeling amonst civies towards the gardai.
their attitude was, if this person looks like he/she could be a danger to themselves/other people, then they will "do" them, else the most they will do is give them a talking to.

BrianD

Well I would and the sooner the better! Irish Gardai, in my opinion, have got a little too integrated into the community for their own good. This is part of the reason why they can't do their jobs effectively. Distance is needed. In any case, the existing procedures on drink-driving checkpoints is that Gardai do not patrol their own areas. They "swap over" with neighbouring areas.

Once a couple of people are done for "a pint or two" the message will spread. This is what we urgently need. `

Helterskelter - we are not talking about other motoring offences in this thread and in case, drink-driving, is more of an issue than some of the other problems that Ninja. I have read his posting and I do not support the idea that "one pinters" are not a problem.

Balloba - enforcement varies in the USA and includes putting "just arrested" drink drivers on TV. I;m not sure what you find wrong with the USA system? The Aussies seem to have enforcement on all fronts well in hand.

HelterSkelter

BrianD wrote:

I do not support the idea that "one pinters" are not a problem.

Have you ever driven after one pint? Have you ever driven to work the next morning after a big session the previous night? Do you think the Guards should crack down on this also?

Calina

HelterSkelter wrote:

Have you ever driven after one pint? Have you ever driven to work the next morning after a big session the previous night? Do you think the Guards should crack down on this also?

Obviously I can't speak on BrianD's behalf, but just in case you're interested:

1) No I have never driven after just one pint. I never, ever drink any alcohol at all if I am going to be driving.

2) No.

3)Yes I do.

The legal limit doubles your chances of being involved in an accident.

I don't have a lot of time for the "just one drink" brigade either. If you can survive on just one drink, then I'm not entirely sure how you can't survive on something which doesn't have alcohol in it.

But for what it's worth, I'm also in favour of banning the use of mobile phones while driving - I'm not entirely sure why it is we should concentrate on either mobile phones or drink-driving. Is there some reason one should take precedence over the other - are we too simple to deal with both at the same time?

Alun

1) No I have never driven after just one pint. I never, ever drink any alcohol at all if I am going to be driving.

Well, assuming you have ever drunk any alcohol at all, and you drive, you will have drunk alcohol before driving. It's just a question then of how long you leave it before you do. Have you, for example, never had 2 or 3 pints in the evening (or, this being Ireland, many, many more), and then driven the next day? If so, did you give yourself a breath test before you stepped into the car? Probably not, I'm guessing. Do you ever drive when you're a bit tired, have a cold, just had an argument with the wife, with two screaming kids in the back etc. etc. ?

BrianD

HelterSkelter wrote:

Have you ever driven after one pint? Have you ever driven to work the next morning after a big session the previous night? Do you think the Guards should crack down on this also?

1. No. I started out as a zero drink drive person. Then for a couple of years I might have one bottle of beer. Now, I am a zero person again. What's the attraction of one drink - you may as well have a coke.

2. Yes I have. I nearly got caught in Australia - don't know if I would have been over the limit or not. I was fortunate in that I wasn't 'pulled' but in frightened the living daylights out of me.

3. Yes I do. It makes no sense to just target people after closing time. I am sure there are many people who drive home early evening after a boozy lunch. Should the liquid lunch business man be immune from checks?

BTW did you ever notice in this country that if you ever announce that you are not having a drink (alcoholic) or just having the one because you are driving that you are suddenly innundated with offers of free beverages?!?

Alun wrote:

Do you ever drive when you're a bit tired, have a cold, just had an argument with the wife, with two screaming kids in the back etc. etc. ?

This is irrelevant to the arguement. We are discussing the consumption of alcohol while driving and random breath tests.

Alun

This is irrelevant to the arguement. We are discussing the consumption of alcohol while driving and random breath tests.

Is it? We started off discussing random breath tests, which BTW I'm all for. In the current context, anyone having had one pint only would pass such a test. I was just pointing out that many people drive under cirumstances which they view as perfectly OK that would probably place them in more danger of having an accident than that one pint might. Seems like a perfectly valid comment to make to me, and since when were you a moderator?

bungeecork

Could it be made a condition of road tax? By taxing a vehicle you are agreeing that it may be stopped for a RBT at any time? That way by driving a taxed vehicle drivers would be agreeing to RBTs.

Any chance ???????

Of course there will always be people that think it's OK to "just have 1" and drive, RBTs or not.

Capt'n Midnight

Victor wrote:

Oddly then drugs legislation allows anyone to be stopped and search quite easily.

Couldn't they just get a customs officer to check you on the off chance you had contraband or untaxed fuel ?

Actually this is one of the few traffic law changes I'd approve of immediately.

Most of the others can wait until the current laws on speeding, insurance, valid licenses are enforced.

Victor

Alun wrote:

In the current context, anyone having had one pint only would pass such a test.

Actually, its not quite so clear cut. It would likely put anyone who was below average weight or on an empty stomach at or near the limit.

BrianD

Alun wrote:

Is it? We started off discussing random breath tests, which BTW I'm all for. In the current context, anyone having had one pint only would pass such a test. I was just pointing out that many people drive under cirumstances which they view as perfectly OK that would probably place them in more danger of having an accident than that one pint might. Seems like a perfectly valid comment to make to me, and since when were you a moderator?

Eh, what don't we discuss the quality of car build, road surface, tinted windows blah blah. We are discussing RBT and drink-driving. I don't have to be the moderator to state that mobile phone usage and umpteen other activities are not relelevant to the thread.

HelterSkelter

BrianD wrote:

1. No. I started out as a zero drink drive person. Then for a couple of years I might have one bottle of beer. Now, I am a zero person again. What's the attraction of one drink - you may as well have a coke.

So do you think you were any more of a danger on the road after having one beer? I am the way you used to be, I'll have one pint, usually drink it over the course of an hour. I prefer drinking a pint to minerals. The pint doesn't have an effect on me and I feel exactly the same driving home. I think I am more of a threat if I am tired or on the phone while driving (rarely take calls while driving but it has been known to happen) or having an argument with someone in the car, etc etc.

BrianD wrote:

BTW did you ever notice in this country that if you ever announce that you are not having a drink (alcoholic) or just having the one because you are driving that you are suddenly innundated with offers of free beverages?!?

Yeah, that is beacuse people can't stand to have a sober person around who will remember all the stupid things they say and do when they are píssed. Think I'll pretend I have the car with me next time I go out, could work out a cheap night!!

MorningStar

Victor wrote:

Oddly then drugs legislation allows anyone to be stopped and search quite easily.

IU can vouch for that. Stopped 6 times in one week becasue there was drug dealing in the area so they decided to harris the people that looked like hippies.

THe laws don't need to be changed enforcement needs to be increased.

Every single study of crime and punishment have come up with one thing. TH efear of being caought is the only real deterant. Hard sentences make little difference if people don't think they will be caught

Hotblack Desiato

BrianD wrote:

Consuming alcohol before driving a motor vehicle is irresponsible and is not what I would call law abiding in the context of ones personal responsibility when living in a community.

Except, within limits set by society, it IS law abiding. If you have a problem with that then lobby your TD - I'll lobby for no change to the limit.

As I said, I agree with RBT and am totally opposed to the present softly softly approach taken to drink drivers. But in typical Irish fashion people make lots of noise about the "irresponsibility" of drinking one pint when we all know people habitually drink ten pints and know they won't be caught.

Are we even sure that drinking one pint is a problem, in the context of the many serious road safety issues that we ignore? Apart from taking the high moral ground you haven't really put forward any reasons for changing the law.

You have really said it all ... you really are one of those "super motorists" to whom normal rules don't need to be applied. Blissful ignorance.

On the contrary I obey the law and expect others to do the same. This would be obvious from reading what I have posted in this thread.

ruprect

So what is the Irish limit? you can buy breathalyzers online, most trigger at 0.025 BAC
but somebody here mentioned 0.5 probably meaning 0.05 which is still very high.
here is a calculator, keep clicking the take a drink and put in hour delays.

http://www.nt.gov.au/health/healthdev/aodp/lwap/bacmeter.shtml

dts

This random thing is rubish. They have had it in England for years but only use it around Xmas time. If the gards want to pull you because they think you may have had a few they will do. If you want to catch drink drivers then sit a Guard outside any pub any day of the week and he will soon catch his man. Random breth test are a waste of time and a wast of tax payers money.