Drink Driving

Degag

It was on the news yesterday about the tipperary councillor who said that he drink drives. He says that people who have two or three pints are quite capable of driving a few miles home and are even more careful than they would be normally. I personally agree with him and applaud him on his guts to admit this. There are many people especially in rural communities who live alone or are unable to organise lifts to and from the pub, and often it can be their only social outing of the week. It is also a fact that it is speedf that is the major killer on our roads, yet speeders get off a lot lighter than drink drivers. Wrong? I think so.

Anyway, i was wondering what opinions other people had on this matter.

MrJoeSoap

Tackle69 wrote:

It was on the news yesterday about the tipperary councillor who said that he drink drives. He says that people who have two or three pints are quite capable of driving a few miles home and are even more careful than they would be normally. I personally agree with him and applaud him on his guts to admit this. There are many people especially in rural communities who live alone or are unable to organise lifts to and from the pub, and often it can be their only social outing of the week. It is also a fact that it is speedf that is the major killer on our roads, yet speeders get off a lot lighter than drink drivers. Wrong? I think so.

Anyway, i was wondering what opinions other people had on this matter.

Personally, I'm happy with the system staying the way it is thanks. This councillor should be removed from his position, he has completely undermined his party.

Degag

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Personally, I'm happy with the system staying the way it is thanks. This councillor should be removed from his position, he has completely undermined his party.

Fair play to him. If he has an opinion he should state it. There are too many polititians who follow party protocol and seem to have no opinion for themselves.

chilli_pepper

Tackle69 wrote:

There are many people especially in rural communities who live alone or are unable to organise lifts to and from the pub, and often it can be their only social outing of the week.

And where do most of the bad accidents happen ? I live in the country and would NEVER Drink and Drive (Not even 1) . I thnik thats the type of attitude that is causing alot of the carnage on our roads "Ah sure I've only had a few , I'll be grand"

Degag

chilli_pepper wrote:

And where do most of the bad accidents happen ? I live in the country and would NEVER Drink and Drive (Not even 1) . I thnik thats the type of attitude that is causing alot of the carnage on our roads "Ah sure I've only had a few , I'll be grand"

But whats the cause of it? It isn't drink in the majority of cases... its speed.

Archeron

I do feel for people who are being excluded socially because of drink driving laws, but I still dont think thats an excuse. The limit should be zero and there should be zero tolerance when it comes to prosectution. We all know the law and we all know the potential misery that drink driving can cause, so I'm afraid I disagree with you on this matter entirely.

Diogenes

I think this thread is conclusive proof that there isn't a minimum IQ you need to become a CC or to post in AH.

bealbocht

sure it is only a couple of pints .. what could possibly go wrong ???

Ruu_Old

Moved from AH, I think there is a similar thread on the issue already here. Throw it back in my direction or elsewhere mods. Thanks.

petes

Tackle69 wrote:

But whats the cause of it? It isn't drink in the majority of cases... its speed.

Both speeding and drink driving are against the law. Get caught doing either and you will get done. Drink driving is worse in my opinion as the driver does not have complete control over their body, even after the 2 or 3 pints quoted above.

MrJoeSoap

Tackle69 wrote:

Fair play to him. If he has an opinion he should state it. There are too many polititians who follow party protocol and seem to have no opinion for themselves.

When he admits to breaking the law regularly he should be dealt with accordingly.

chilli_pepper

Tackle69 wrote:

But whats the cause of it? It isn't drink in the majority of cases... its speed.

Drink + Driving = Impaired Vision , I cant give any stats I'm afraid can you ? but am I not right that the legislation for compulsory breathalysing after ALL crashes has only been introduced , in the past after accidents people werent breathalysed so how do we know drink driving was not the cause...I appreciate your point that speed is the real killer but Drink Driving aint a good thing and certainly politicans should not be promoting it !

stipey

There are many people especially in rural communities who live alone or are unable to organise lifts to and from the pub, and often it can be their only social outing of the week.

This is hardly an excuse as they have other options....

They could call a taxi - its only an extra few quid which in the grand scheme of things, considering they have bought a feed of pints at 4 quid a pop, isn't a whole lot.

Presumably a lot of them have fully functioning legs that they can move, putting one in front of the other, until they reach the pub of their choice.

They could cycle - anybody they hit while drunk on a pushbike is probably unlikely to die. If they crash a pushbike into a tree while drunk they are not likely to be going at a speed that will kill them.

They could not drink - why didn't somebody think of this before. If it's their "only social outing of the week" then it should obviously be more about the people they meet and the chat and less about the drink. If they want to get drunk then they can do that at home.

There have been approximately 318 deaths on the roads in Ireland so far this year. OK drink driving hasn't caused all of them - but it has cause some. The law, and by extension the alcohol limit is there for a reason people should learn to live with it.

You can't pick and choose which bits apply to you.... Bernard Dunne has a boxing match on Saturday. I can't see him walking over to his opponent when the bell goes to start round one, kicking him in the balls and then saying "I'm with you on the gloves and bells rule, but I'm going to go my own way on the 'kicking in the balls' rule"

whiskeyman

Tackle69 wrote:

But whats the cause of it? It isn't drink in the majority of cases... its speed.

Have you ever thought that drink affects a persons ability to control a cars speed?

aidan_walsh

Presumably a lot of them have fully functioning legs that they can move, putting one in front of the other, until they reach the pub of their choice.

Will they still be fully functional after "a feed of pints" though?

They could cycle

Oh please, the idea is to keep drunk people off the road.

stipey

aidan_walsh wrote:

Will they still be fully functional after "a feed of pints" though?

Of course they will, why wouldn't they? They might walking in less of a straight line than they did on their way out to the pub but that just means it will take them longer to get home. Anyway if they were drunk enough for their legs to stop functioning, I am sure they would be drunk enough that sleeping upside down in a hedge would seem as comfortable as 5* hotel.

aidan_walsh wrote:

Oh please, the idea is to keep drunk people off the road.

Yes - cycling a bike drunk is equally as dangerous as driving driving a car drunk. Already 70 people have been killed in high speed head on collissions with cyclists this year.

Kipperhell

Tackle69 wrote:

Fair play to him. If he has an opinion he should state it. There are too many polititians who follow party protocol and seem to have no opinion for themselves.

Fair play for speaking his mind but as he is an idiot he should be kicked out of office and his party.
He actually stated as he hadn't killed anyone he has done nothing wrong!
It's all well and good for people down the country to use reasons to justify their behaviour but it does not excuse the fact that more people die down the country on the roads than anywhere else. Driver error is the main cause of all accidents as far as I am aware which includes speed.
The general disregard for the rules and beleif they know better is the casue of all accidents. For any person to say they knows better than proven dangers is idiotic. For a politician to say so on radio warrant dismissal. Reaction times are slower due to alcohol no doubt about it.
I feel a bit sorry for lonely farmers but a pub is not the only way to interact and disregard for others for their pleasure should warrant a sliding scale of fines as a deterant. Telling them they lose half their farm when caught and they will soon change

MrJoeSoap

October 13th, 2006

Fine Gael will this week publish a road safety Bill to impose harsher measures for dangerous driving and drink driving, and pave the way for the introduction of drug testing of motorists. The Bill will also ensure that injured parties are informed when a disqualified driver seeks to have their licence returned.

The Bill will:

• Create a mandatory disqualification for dangerous driving;
• Provide for mandatory breath testing of drivers at the scene of road accidents;
• Provide the Transport Minister with the power to regulate for drug testing;
• Index road traffic fines to inflation, to replace the current system whereby fines can only be increased by new legislation.

November 8th, 2006

FINE Gael has been plunged into an embarrassing controversy after one of its politicians openly admitted he drinks and drives.

Tipperary councillor Michael Fitzgerald (50), who has a previous drink-driving conviction, said he sees nothing wrong with motorists having "three or four pints" before getting behind the wheel.

He insisted such people were being wrongly targeted for the carnage on our roads.

But a "furious" Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny last night effectively expelled councillor Cllr Fitzgerald from the party after hearing the comments.

He is to recommend that the whip be removed, putting him outside the party.

The storm comes just weeks after Fine Gael called for a zero tolerance approach to drink drivers.

A prominent Fine Gael county councillor in South Tipperary, Mr Fitzgerald publicly admitted he drives with "three or four pints" even though he has previously been breathalysed and banned from driving.

Mr Fitzgerald said he only wanted to highlight the issue of young boy racers driving at high speed in souped up cars in the early hours of the morning.

"I've never killed anyone. I feel the wrong people are being targeted," he said.

Lamenting the demise of Irish traditional pub culture, Mr Fitzgerald also hit out at the morning after breath test and said random breath testing is killing off the remnants of rural Ireland.

---

What a genius, but the best part was...

"Mr Fitzgerald cited the case of a man he knew who was caught for drink-driving just 100 yards from his house.

"Was he a threat doing what he did all his life?

A number of points of this one...

1. Just because he had been doing it "all his life" doesn't mean he wasn't a threat.
2. Was he only driving 100 yards? If so, WHY?
3. What the fu#k?

aidan_walsh

They might walking in less of a straight line than they did on their way out to the pub but that just means it will take them longer to get home.

You seem to be assuming that all country roads are nice and wide, with lots of footpath space. Far from the truth in many parts of the country.

Yes - cycling a bike drunk is equally as dangerous as driving a car drunk.

As long as you are on the road drunk you are a danger to yourself and other motorists. Why does the person have to hit a person to be a danger? Is there not the chance of hitting a car? Do you really think thats unheard of?

Already 70 people have been killed in high speed head on collissions with cyclists this year.

Hur hur hur :rolleyes:

Wishbone Ash

I think part of the problem lies with the Drink Driving Adverts.

They generally depict younger people drinking in busy pubs with a racous atmosphere and then driving fairly flashy cars on busy roads. Many of the older generation do not relate to that and therefore probably assume that they are not being targeted.

Maybe it's time to show a middle-aged country chap in a tweed peaked cap having a quiet chat and 3 pints of Guinness in his local and then getting into the Corolla and driving at 20mph for a couple of miles home on a Sunday night along a quiet country road.

stipey

1. I'm assuming nothing.

As long as you are on the road drunk you are a danger to yourself and other motorists.

2. So I take it you agree with me that (a) drink driving is a bad thing and (b) Fitzgerald making that statmenet was a retarded thing to do. So why the heated debate? (If on the other hand you are looking at things from the other side of the coin - perhaps you might like to address the taxi or not-drinking suggestions)


My point at is simplest was this: rural isolation should not be an excuse for drink driving - I simply presented a number of alternatives (some tongue in cheek) and opined that an "a la carte" approach doesn't really work. (See Bernard Dunne analogy).

KerranJast

MrJoeSoap wrote:

October 13th, 2006

Fine Gael will this week publish a road safety Bill to impose harsher measures for dangerous driving and drink driving, and pave the way for the introduction of drug testing of motorists. The Bill will also ensure that injured parties are informed when a disqualified driver seeks to have their licence returned.

The Bill will:

• Create a mandatory disqualification for dangerous driving;
• Provide for mandatory breath testing of drivers at the scene of road accidents;
• Provide the Transport Minister with the power to regulate for drug testing;
• Index road traffic fines to inflation, to replace the current system whereby fines can only be increased by new legislation.

November 8th, 2006

FINE Gael has been plunged into an embarrassing controversy after one of its politicians openly admitted he drinks and drives.

Tipperary councillor Michael Fitzgerald (50), who has a previous drink-driving conviction, said he sees nothing wrong with motorists having "three or four pints" before getting behind the wheel.

He insisted such people were being wrongly targeted for the carnage on our roads.

But a "furious" Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny last night effectively expelled councillor Cllr Fitzgerald from the party after hearing the comments.

He is to recommend that the whip be removed, putting him outside the party.

The storm comes just weeks after Fine Gael called for a zero tolerance approach to drink drivers.

A prominent Fine Gael county councillor in South Tipperary, Mr Fitzgerald publicly admitted he drives with "three or four pints" even though he has previously been breathalysed and banned from driving.

Mr Fitzgerald said he only wanted to highlight the issue of young boy racers driving at high speed in souped up cars in the early hours of the morning.

"I've never killed anyone. I feel the wrong people are being targeted," he said.

Lamenting the demise of Irish traditional pub culture, Mr Fitzgerald also hit out at the morning after breath test and said random breath testing is killing off the remnants of rural Ireland.

---

What a genius, but the best part was...

"Mr Fitzgerald cited the case of a man he knew who was caught for drink-driving just 100 yards from his house.

"Was he a threat doing what he did all his life?

A number of points of this one...

1. Just because he had been doing it "all his life" doesn't mean he wasn't a threat.
2. Was he only driving 100 yards? If so, WHY?
3. What the fu#k?

I think this is good PR for Fine Gael. They have made it clear with Fitzgerald and John Deasy (who was unlucky IMO with respect to the smoking ban) that they won't accept law breakers or people who advocate law breaking in the party. It's a pity Fianna Fail don't show the same principles. Jim McDaid anyone?

El Stuntman

KerranJast wrote:

It's a pity Fianna Fail don't show the same principles. Jim McDaid anyone?

LOL at the words principles and Fianna Fail in the same sentence, always cracks me up!!

aidan_walsh

So I take it you agree with me that (a) drink driving is a bad thing and (b) Fitzgerald making that statmenet was a retarded thing to do.

Absolutely.

So why the heated debate?

I was only pointing out a few of your more flawed alternatives.

If on the other hand you are looking at things from the other side of the coin

I'm not, I have a vehement dislike for anyone who thinks that drink driving is acceptable.

rural isolation should not be an excuse for drink driving

Quite correct.

b3t4

I don't condone this behaviour but I do know why it happens.

Would it not be more productive to suggest and/or provide alternatives for people living in rural areas?

I come from a rural area. There are no alternatives for people to get to the pub.

People in Dublin complain about taxi shortages but imagine living in a place that has nothing. No nitelink, no taxi, nothing but the car for you to get from a to b. Walking is also not an option as there are no street lighting for the most parts.

Perhaps, making it a requirement that a bus be available to drive people to and from the pubs in rural areas might help matters. A minimal fee could be charged. If pup owners could be brought into this in some way it'd be great.Also the bus should run at regular times so people don't feel too stuck to a timetable.

We used to be able to get a bus to and from disco's. I can't see why providing a similar service for adults would cause too much fuss.

Wertz

Tackle69 wrote:

But whats the cause of it? It isn't drink in the majority of cases... its speed.

You're correct of course...so how do you stop mildly intoxicated drivers from speeding when you can't manage to stop them from speeding whilst sober?

I too agree politicans should speak their minds...but they shouldn't condone breaking the law...

invincibleirish

heres my two cents for what its worth.it echoes what has been said above in some posts:

drink driving is wrong, shouldnt do it but people do

i originally come from a rural area,the closest pub would be a mile and a half away,everyone in my area drink drives, the young,the old, male and female, there is no alternative, my family members have done it, so have my local councillors, so has the local gardai when off duty.

now i live in cork city, when i go into town i can walk home or if im lazy i can get a taxi,these options dont exist in rural areas

my point is that in rural areas people have, do and will continue to drink drive no matter what happens, for many as has been said the local pub is their only social outlet,you can all talk about how wrong it is but it doesnt matter its going to continue

they councillor who said it has my sympathy, i know what he is talking about because it is a big issue in rural areas, i can also see how idiotic his comments will seem to people from urban areas, but its going to continue, the amount of drink driving that goes on in this country in rural areas is is enormous, and nothing will change that.

Diogenes

invincibleirish wrote:

i originally come from a rural area,the closest pub would be a mile and a half away,

Walking a mile and a half home is something people regularly do in the city.

MrJoeSoap

Diogenes wrote:

Walking a mile and a half home is something people regularly do in the city.

Tbh, walking a mile and a half to a pub in a rural area at night, given the attitudes of some people in this country/forum towards drinking and driving in rural areas, is madness.

Degag

Wertz wrote:

You're correct of course...so how do you stop mildly intoxicated drivers from speeding when you can't manage to stop them from speeding whilst sober?

In my experience, people are more careful on the roads with 2 or 3 pints in them... they are even more aware of potential dangers on the road.

Walking a mile and a half home is something people regularly do in the city.

With streetlampss and footpaths

i originally come from a rural area,the closest pub would be a mile and a half away,everyone in my area drink drives, the young,the old, male and female, there is no alternative, my family members have done it, so have my local councillors, so has the local gardai when off duty.

Where are you from? Its the same in my local area down to the local councillors and gardai. Everybody who goes to my local pub drinks and drives, and never has there been a drink related accident. There are far greater dangers out there than the fellow who goes to the pub for a few pints and drives home... maybe people from the cities don't realise this because its not a part of their culture due to the proximity of pubs and indeed other social activities. Speed is it. I often wonder how a guy can get away scott free (barring the 2 penalty points and a small fine) for driving at 120mph, while the guy who has two pints and drives at 30mphis put off the roads for 2 years.

Wertz

Tackle69 wrote:

In my experience, people are more careful on the roads with 2 or 3 pints in them... they are even more aware of potential dangers on the road.

Nope, that's not answering my question; that's sidestepping it with rhetoric.

Alcohol's main effect on the mind is removing or diminishing inhibition; ie it makes you care a little less about the consequences of things, hence you'll talk more, let your guard down and take a few more risks, and, if placed behind the wheel of a car, you'll do other things you wouldn't do sober, or do things badly....that stage of intoxication is reached much sooner than the drunken stage and is an impairment to driving, no matter how careful the driver intends to be.

Throw all that into the equation of an already reckless driver who likes to go a little faster than the limit or cut corners on roads they "know" and it's going to lead to an increase in death and injury on our roads, right at a time when we're trying in vain to cut them.

That councillor's comments are unhelpful and down right insulting to anyone who's been unfortunate enough to loose someone in a car accident where drink was a factor.

....and before you start, I come from a semi-rural area; taxis are a pain in the arse, costly and take a while to come. If problems for people in fully rural areas are as pronounced as seems to be the case then it's up to drinkers and publicans to arrange some sort of means of getting people home safely after an enjoyable night out, not having them end up in a ditch in a twisted wreck of metal...

corktina

if getting home from a rural pub is a problem Publicans should take responsibility and lay on a mini bus service....

how can you have a system where one man can take his drink and is allowed to drive and another can't and is not allowed.....? its a red herring to say speed is a bigger problem...yes it is, but too wrongs dont make a right....zero tolerance on BOTH issues is needed...

..i feel that "boy racers" are being unfairly blackened too...a lot of these lads are good drivers and car enthusiasts who look after their cars and often don't drink because they can't afford to as they've spent their dosh on petrol....

gobdaw

How does the practice of one off houses in our countryside affect the necessity for driving to and from social events where drink is a part? That is, practically all social events.

Is it not becoming more obvious that urban settlements need to be promoted, rather that our fixation with one offs and the "better quatity of life" in the country. This thread seems, to a drinker like myself, to argue against that idea.

jimmycrackcorm

Technically the Tipp councillor is correct.

It's incorrect to make an assumption that drinking and driving after 2-3 pints automatically makes you a danger on the road. If that were true I'd have no doubt our road fatalities would be much higher given the incidence of drunk driving currently going on.

It's perfectly feasible for a particular person to drink 2-3 pints and drive safely home for various reasons. However for say every 100 people who do this there might be one who is responsible for an accident. By reducing the incidence of drink driving the fatality statistics are improved.

corktina

I don't agree..

i think it accepted that ANY amount of alcahol affects your reactions......not safe to drive a ton of metal at 100k/mh if you are impaired in any way....

Seth Brundle

Tackle69 wrote:

But whats the cause of it? It isn't drink in the majority of cases... its speed.

How fast is 'speed'? Maybe you are talking about the drug! Or are you referring to exceeding the speed limits? If so does that mean that you can drive as fast as you want as long as you don't exceed the speed limits?
The word 'speed' when used in terms of our roads is so badly misused!

Tackle69 wrote:

In my experience, people are more careful on the roads with 2 or 3 pints in them... they are even more aware of potential dangers on the road.

When you gathered this information, did you have drink on you?

Tackle69 wrote:

With streetlampss and footpaths

and your point is?
Surely with all these safer drivers going home from the pub (safer due to the 3 or 4 points in their belly), you are safer walking along a country lane and lights/paths aren't really necessary?

Tackle69 wrote:

Where are you from? Its the same in my local area down to the local councillors and gardai. Everybody who goes to my local pub drinks and drives, and never has there been a drink related accident. There are far greater dangers out there than the fellow who goes to the pub for a few pints and drives home... maybe people from the cities don't realise this because its not a part of their culture due to the proximity of pubs and indeed other social activities.

I used to D&D. (I now realise my stupidity)
I have drunk with gardai who later went out on duty (one was suposed to be driving that night!) and I agree that it is practiced widely all over the country but possibly much more so in rural areas as folk here feel they have the right to D&D because they live out the road. This is a significant reason why people are dying yet because garda stats are so inadequate it isn't properly recorded.
people are fooling themselves if they believe that alcohol doesn't affect their decision making.

Diogenes

jimmycrackcorm wrote:

Technically the Tipp councillor is correct.

It's incorrect to make an assumption that drinking and driving after 2-3 pints automatically makes you a danger on the road. If that were true I'd have no doubt our road fatalities would be much higher given the incidence of drunk driving currently going on.

The above is pure undiluted horsemanure

International research indicates that alcohol is a contributory factor in up to 40% of road collisions and in Ireland, it is conservatively estimated that alcohol is the primary cause of 25% of all road collisions and 33% of collisions resulting in fatalities

http://www.rte.ie/news/features/roadsafety/roadsafetyissues.html

It's perfectly feasible for a particular person to drink 2-3 pints and drive safely home for various reasons.

And what pray tell that are those reasons?

However for say every 100 people who do this there might be one who is responsible for an accident. By reducing the incidence of drink driving the fatality statistics are improved.

Okay you flat out contradict yourself in your last sentence you keep claiming that it's perfectly acceptable to have three times the limit and drive home,and then offer a purile unproven claim about one in a hundred before, saying we need to reduce drink driving to reduce fatalities.

Y'know how to reduce drink driving incidents stiffer penalities for idiots caught three times over the legal limit.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Tbh, walking a mile and a half to a pub in a rural area at night, given the attitudes of some people in this country/forum towards drinking and driving in rural areas, is madness.

True that...

Tackle69 wrote:

In my experience, people are more careful on the roads with 2 or 3 pints in them... they are even more aware of potential dangers on the road.

Your experience has no basis in reality, and the statistics prove it.

popebenny16

I live in a rural area. Its about two miles to the nearest pub. There are several options:

1. Designated driver.
2. Dont drink
3. Hack
4. Pub drives you home.

Number 4 is laid on free of charge by the publican, because he knows that a lot of people go to his pub to avail of that service. The lad who collects the glasses usually does it at the end of the night. Its simple and it works.

anyone who says that you cna have one drink and not be impaired is talking rubbish. It is a fact, drink interferes with your judgement, braking distances, speed (What is speed? FFS), taking a bend in the road, going over the white line, all are affected by alcohol intake.

As far as i am concerned its simple: zero levels. If you cant cope with that stay at home or get a fecking lift.

Degag

Y'know how to reduce drink driving incidents stiffer penalities for idiots caught three times over the legal limit.

Like what? Jail time?

I don't know if anyone was watching the panel last night, but there was some guy who was caught speeding at 197 kmph in his porche.... What did he get? A slap on the wrist and a €1500 fine... for a guy who can afford a porche. Some things just make me laugh out loud. In my opinion it's people like this who should be banned from driving not the poor joe soap who is "done" for having his two pints. Why? Because joe soap has respect for the vehicle he is driving home. He will drive home carefully, with no problems. The aforementioned speeder however has no respect for his car, the road and the people on it, yet he basically gets away scot free. Where's the justice in this?

There was also an article in a sunday newspaper, a tabloid before anyone asks, where a reporter breatalysed about 20 people after each drink. The results varied, with some people failing after 2 drinks, while some only failed after 4. So therefore it seems as if the government and the state condone drink driving, which leads me to wonder what the uproar was regarding the tipperary councillor, when it appears legal to drink and drive after 2 or 3 pints.

seamus

Anyone who thinks that their reactions are sharper or that they're more aware after a few pints is an idiot. Plain and simply lacking a few billions brain cells. There is no argument on it.

A very simple demonstration of the effect alcohol has on you is to take console and a driving game. Do a time trial, drive the same course 20 times, sober, and record your scores. Then start drinking. Mark in where you started drinking, and continue to keep track of your scores. Your times will increase significantly, and for most people, you'll probably get bored and do something else after four pints. That's another feature of alcohol - short attention span. Lethal when driving.

It's not even remotely the same as actually driving a car, but if you're unable to retain focussed and accurate control of a few electrons, using just your fine motor skills, what hope do you have of maintaining control of a tonne of steel, using all of your limbs and your intelligence?

"But what about those guys?!" is the cry of the idiot. 33% of fatal accidents involve alcohol as the primary contributing factor. You can't say "Ah sure it's not that big a deal". It's one-in-three. That means that 107 people have been killed this year because of drink-driving. That's not insignificant.

There is no "safe" amount that one can drink to ensure that they stay under the limit. Trying to quantify it is a fool's errand. A person's tolerance will depend on multiple factors, not all of which can be taken into account at the time of consumption. You have to view the blood-alcohol limit much like speed limits. Just because the limit exists, doesn't necessarily mean that Under = Safe and Over = Dangerous. It exists because it is physically impossible to enforce a zero limit.

gobdaw

Isn't there an aweful lot of ortadoxy on this topic? Its like a new religion.

seamus wrote:

A very simple demonstration of the effect alcohol has on you is to take console and a driving game. Do a time trial, drive the same course 20 times, sober, and record your scores. Then start drinking. Mark in where you started drinking, and continue to keep track of your scores. Your times will increase significantly, and for most people, you'll probably get bored and do something else after four pints. That's another feature of alcohol - short attention span.

They'll do something else because this is stupid.
Time yourself driving from A to B daylight, dry, early morning empty roads. Record your time. Then do the same journey on a wet dark wintery busy night. Your time will increase significiently, most people will get bored and not do this test at all. Thats a feature of intelligence!

People adjust their driving to the conditions prevailing. If icy, slower speed and carefull steering is the order. Narrow back roads means slower speeds , despite the 80 kh limits. Several pints indicate more carefull/slower driving required.

How was the 80ml limit decided? Was it because rest of Europe was 80, and we had to be "good europeans". Has anyone got stats for effect on road fatalities/accidents after reduction from 120 to 80? Did it have any effect at all?

seamus wrote:

33% of fatal accidents involve alcohol as the primary contributing factor.

I don't think that that is a statistic, it may be an estimation. What % fatalities have speed, poor engineering, stress, mechanically unsound vechicles, age of driver. Finally, what amount of alcohol/blood were in that 33% estimation?

And aren't all those figures relevent to a proper understanding of effect of alcohol etc on road fatalities.

I recall an Australian exercise that descovered that for every driver who exceeded alcohol limits, seven were driving under influence of drugs. What percentage of fatal accidents involve drugs in Ireland? And are we directing scarce resorces at the major cause or just at an aspect thats an easy one.

lostexpectation

is there such thing as 'seasoned drinker',

and can this poor country folk not go to the pub and not drink alcohol?

Calina

gobdaw wrote:

People adjust their driving to the conditions prevailing. If icy, slower speed and carefull steering is the order. Narrow back roads means slower speeds , despite the 80 kh limits. Several pints indicate more carefull/slower driving required.

You really don't have a clue, do you? A significant number of drivers in this country do not drive according to prevailing conditions. They speed. They over take on blind bends. They drive significantly in excess of the speed limit in driving rain and snow. And they overtake in blind fog. In other words, given what people are capable of doing by way of stupidity while driving when they are sober I have no faith in the assessment that they might be more careful or slower when they do drive. Risk assessment on the part of drivers in this country is pathetically bad.

I'm appalled by the attitude in this thread on the part of some contributors which amounts to :

1) speed is worse, sort that out instead
2) drugs may be worse, look at that instead.

There is no instead. Alcohol has been proven to contribute to avoidable fatal accidents in just about every western country and that is why quite a lot of people have strong feelings about people who think they can drive/are fine driving after a few pints.

So there should be no instead. Tackle the speed. Tackle the drugs and tackle the alcohol. It is stupid to assume that any of these should have a lower priority than the others.

There is a horrific lack of responsibility in this country. We are quite happy to take risks with other people's lives on the roads. I really don't care if someone drinking kills himself whilst driving. I do care if he kills me or someone I care about. I never - and I mean NEVER - drive if I have even had one drink. I am capable of drinking a mineral or a fruit juice when I go out. I come from the country and this has always been the way for me. I am sick to the teeth of people going "ah, you know, down the country it is different." It is not. If you drive whilst under the influence of alcohol you are a selfish, a very selfish person. No one has to drink alcohol. No one is forced to drink alcohol. If it's the social outlet you want, then there are alternatives to alcoholic drinks. You may be inconvenienced by the law, but tough. If you do drink and drive, or use drugs and drive and kill someone, it is as a result of a decision you made and you are responsible. Not the drugs, not the drink. And I can tell you the death of someone in an avoidable accident - which an alcoholic/speed/drugs related "accident" is - is significantly more than an inconvenience, both to the person killed and their close persons.

The FG councillor in this saga should be censured. What he said was wrong. What he said is a direct line to all these other problems we have in this country. What it amounts to is "I don't give a damn about the rest of you, all that matters is me".

gobdaw

Calina wrote:

You really don't have a clue, do you?

Why not show where I'm wrong, rather than ranting?

Calina wrote:

A significant number of drivers in this country do not drive according to prevailing conditions. They speed......

So what's the answer? Zero speed? Man with red flag in front? For everybody? Thats the equivalent there of your zero limit.

Calina wrote:

when they are sober

And any alcohol, they are not sober? I disagree with that.

Calina wrote:

Risk assessment on the part of drivers in this country is pathetically bad.

So is the problem really poor driving in general,you say, and then your suggested zero limits would have little, if any, effect on road fatalities.

Calina wrote:

1) speed is worse, sort that out instead
2) drugs may be worse, look at that instead.

Other posters suggest that these would amount to 70% of road fatalities without alcohol being a factor, more if you include incidents with alcohol as an additional factor. Is there no case to prioritise the major problem, rather that methods that appear to address part of the lesser. I believe in statistics and I believe in odds.

Calina wrote:

Alcohol has been proven to contribute to avoidable fatal accidents in just about every western country and that is why quite a lot of people have strong feelings about people who think they can drive/are fine driving after a few pints.

But you are not showing the quantity of alcohol involved - and that is the nub of this thread. How many fatalities have resulted soley from driver blood count being 80/120ml? I suspect very few. Are there statictics from anywhere to show different? I have previously asked if the reduction of limits to 80 had any effect, and thats allowing for the fact that that resulted in a lot of drivers rarely driving having had a drink. Those figures would be very tilted to showing a greater reduction in fatalities. Do they show such a reduction? Just asking.

[/quote]
So there should be no instead. Tackle the speed. Tackle the drugs and tackle the alcohol. It is stupid to assume that any of these should have a lower priority than the others.
[/quote]

Not really, in view of limited resorces, those resorces should be directed at the highest priority, to save most lives. It really is not enought to castigate anyone querying the current sacred cows. It is much easier to stay quiet. Some are choicing to question. Not everyone has your divine certainty.

Calina wrote:

You really don't have a clue, do you?

I'm looking for facts, verifiable facts, regarding the effect on driving, of having alcohol count of 80/120ml. There seems to be agreement that driving somewhat over the legal limit is widespread in this country. Surely that cohort of drivers must be involved in fatalities, if you are right. Where are the facts?

I have not noticed, nor heard, anyone suggesting no limits.

mike65

I think some here belong to the Brenda Power school of Motoring

Mike.