Alcohol limit slashed from 80 to 20mgs?

pburns

In today's Independant:

MOVES are under way to cut our drink-driving alcohol limit. The current level of 80 milligrammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood could be slashed to as low 20mg/100ml.

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/

Now to be honest, I pretty incensed about this...
I don't drink/drive, never have. It costs me €18 to get a taxi home to the sticks - I don't mind that. But if the limit is to be cut to a quarter of the current limit then how safe are you driving 10-12 even 14 hours later?? And what about drinking a glass or two of wine in the evening & getting up to drive the next morning?

The real bummer is some poor sod who has done everything right and gets breathalysed the following day is treated exactly the same as the genuinely drunk, vodka-sozzled speedster. That could put a lot of law abiding citizens the wrong side of the law in a life-changing situation.

As I see it the current limit is sufficent if enforced rigorously. But the politicans need to be seen to be 'taking action'.

And while I'm on the subject, I see that epitomy of reasoned thinking and balanced debate - Charlie Bird - is up to his old bandwagon-jumping tricks again. What's the journalistic eqivalant of an 'ambulance-chaser'?

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

maidhc

Agree.

This is a typical Martin Cullen idea. I suspect it is one he came up with in the pub, just before his garda driver brought him home at our expense.

CrowdedHouse

pburns wrote:

The real bummer is some poor sod who has done everything right and gets breathalysed the following day is treated exactly the same as the genuinely drunk, vodka-sozzled speedster. That could put a lot of law abiding citizens the wrong side of the law in a life-changing situation.

Well you are the same if you're over the limit

AlienGav

If they really wanted to stamp it out, they could provide free taxis after 1am.

Alun

CrowdedHouse wrote:

Well you are the same if you're over the limit

Are you? One day you're a law abiding citizen well under the limit, the next day due only to a change in the law you suddenly become an alcohol crazed baby murderer .. how does that work? It's a similar thing to when the speed limits were changed .. one day you could drive along a road quite legally at 60mph, and the next day you're a social outcast for doing exactly the same speed on the very same road .. nothing else has changed.

pburns

pburns wrote:

...some poor sod who has done everything right and gets breathalysed the following day is treated exactly the same as the genuinely drunk, vodka-sozzled speedster

CrowdedHouse wrote:

Well you are the same if you're over the limit

That kind of black/white thinking drives me nuts!

How can someone genuinely drunk behind the wheel of a car coming home from the pub be 'the same' as someone 12 hrs later after perhaps a sleep, meal & shower who only TECHNICALLY has residues of alcohol still in the blood (particularly if we are talking about this ridiculous 20mg proposal)?

Yakuza

Can someone of a legal persuasion clarify if it's (as Crowdedhouse suggests above) an all-or-nothing situation? I.e. is the offence being just over the limit, or is the degree of how much you are over the limit taken into consideration in court? i.e. will someone with 81g/ml get treated the same as someone with 181g/ml?

Stark

Yakuza wrote:

Can someone of a legal persuasion clarify if it's (as Crowdedhouse suggests above) an all-or-nothing situation? I.e. is the offence being just over the limit, or is the degree of how much you are over the limit taken into consideration in court? i.e. will someone with 81g/ml get treated the same as someone with 181g/ml?

No; fortunately it's not like speeding where 5km/hr over the limit earns you the same number of points as 40km/hr over the limit. Being just over 0.8g/l will get you a 3 month driving ban. The more you're over, the longer the driving ban you get and you can get prison time on top of that.

I'm in favour of a reduction on the limit as 0.8g/l is quite high, although I hope they reduce the minimum driving ban if they're reducing the legal alcohol limit.

Personally I think the legal limit should be 0.5g/l like most European states.

Hotblack Desiato

This is ridiculous IMHO especially as the current law is so often flouted.
Half of those convicted are twice over the 80mg limit, so if lots of people don't give a damn about the current limit why should they care about a reduced one?

It's like saying that because a few people are causing accidents by driving at 200km/h we're going to reduce the motorway speed limit to 60km/h.

Stark

ninja900 wrote:

It's like saying that because a few people are causing accidents by driving at 200km/h we're going to reduce the motorway speed limit to 60km/h.

Ssh, you don't know who'd be reading

Guy:Incognito

pburns wrote:

And what about drinking a glass or two of wine in the evening & getting up to drive the next morning?

Unless you weigh literally half a stone, you'll be fine the next day.

Why do people think that they are ok to drive hung over yet they wouldnt attempt other things? People will regularly ring in sick to work /cry off from a football match when suffering from hangovers but feel they are harshly done by when over the limit the following day. Whats the differences between driving straight after 2 pints and having (made up amounts) 80mg alcohol in you system and driving the mornign after having 8 pints and still having 80mg alcohol in your system?

ninja900 wrote:

This is ridiculous IMHO especially as the current law is so often flouted.
Half of those convicted are twice over the 80mg limit, so if lots of people don't give a damn about the current limit why should they care about a reduced one?.

In fairness theres not much you can do about people who wont obey laws till they are caught, all you can do is make laws and hope they get caught if they break them.

Seth Brundle

pburns wrote:

The real bummer is some poor sod who has done everything right and gets breathalysed the following day is treated exactly the same as the genuinely drunk, vodka-sozzled speedster. That could put a lot of law abiding citizens the wrong side of the law in a life-changing situation.

If someone is still over the limit the following day then they had a lot to drink the night before and should therefore be wary of whether they will be over the limit the following day - its not going to be a surprise to them!

pburns wrote:

That kind of black/white thinking drives me nuts!

How can someone genuinely drunk behind the wheel of a car coming home from the pub be 'the same' as someone 12 hrs later after perhaps a sleep, meal & shower who only TECHNICALLY has residues of alcohol still in the blood (particularly if we are talking about this ridiculous 20mg proposal)?

On average, after drinking on an empty stomach, the average person will lose 1/2 pint worth of alcohol per hour (I heard some expert on the wireless today). So if someone is still over the limit 12 hours later then they really had a skinful the night before.

I had a drink last Thursday (well actually a kegload!) at the office party. For various reasons I had not had a pint since July. I had been out several times but managed to still have a good night without drinking. People *think* they need alcohol to have a good time.

mike65

Sweden has had 20 for some years, basicly its so you can eat sherry triffle at Crimbo! I don't have much problem with this as such but it'll only be of any use if its enforced.

We all know Zero intake is the only way.

Mike.

ninty9er

This is the only good idea ever to come out of Martin Cullen. A glass of wine with dinner is all well and good but two glasses with dinner the night before if taken eith dinner are not going to put you over the limit.

I think someone who has an issue with this should go and get some alcohol addiction counselling rather than get incensed with a government that is trying to combat as many problems as this country has.

I was out saturday night and got home around 3.. I got my dad to drive me to work. While a little inconvenient, it was only common sense that I shouldn't drive even though there were no signs of a hangover or sickness, I still had booze in my blood.

Don't drink and drive is the message and this is the cavalry starting to come and back it up...next we'll see more cops where they should be and then we'll get a proper driver education system...all too late, but then again, how many Irish people do you know that turn up on time???????

Hotblack Desiato

ninty9er wrote:

This is the only good idea ever to come out of Martin Cullen.

Nope, we're still waiting

I think someone who has an issue with this should go and get some alcohol addiction counselling rather than get incensed with a government that is trying to combat as many problems as this country has.

This is a ridiculous comment.
Some people will be over a 20mg limit with a half pint of beer, do they need addiction counselling?
IF this reduction in the limit was indeed solving a problem I'd be in favour of it.
It's not, it's simply PR and window dressing.
Are the 21-79mg drivers really a problem anyway? How many accidents would they cause over and above 20mg drivers?
We still have a huge problem with 150mg+ drivers, why don't we concentrate on enforcing the existing law?

I was out saturday night and got home around 3.. I got my dad to drive me to work. While a little inconvenient, it was only common sense that I shouldn't drive even though there were no signs of a hangover or sickness, I still had booze in my blood.

If you were out drinking til 3am it's quite possible you were still well over 80mg 5 hours later going to work. So changing the limit would have made no difference.

Don't drink and drive is the message

I agree but the idea that a mouthful of shandy turns one into a homicidal maniac is plainly ridiculous and the public will not accept the message that 20mg is dangerous - FFS many of them won't accept that 150mg is dangerous.
This risks bringing the whole anti-drink-driving message into ridicule.

We already know that talking on a phone is comparable to driving at 80mg, but it's widespread and acceptable. Just the other day the RSA had a PR saying that tiredness was as bad as being drunk. Why would we ignore these (admittedly harder to enforce) issues but hit the one-pint drinker? Because, like speeding, a machine spits out a figure and you're illegal, no debating the Garda's opinion in court. Easy money and good PR.

Guy:Incognito

ninja900 wrote:

Nope, we're still waiting.

You might be, but most of us agree that this is a good thing.

ninja900 wrote:

This is a ridiculous comment.
Some people will be over a 20mg limit with a half pint of beer, do they need addiction counselling?.

Why drink at all if you know you are driving?

ninja900 wrote:

If you were out drinking til 3am it's quite possible you were still well over 80mg 5 hours later going to work. So changing the limit would have made no difference.

If your not responsible enough to make sure you dont drink and drive by "accident" you shouldnt be driving at all.

ninja900 wrote:

I agree but the idea that a mouthful of shandy turns one into a homicidal maniac is plainly ridiculous and the public will not accept the message that 20mg is dangerous - FFS many of them won't accept that 150mg is dangerous.
This risks bringing the whole anti-drink-driving message into ridicule..

So who gets to say what the level should be set at? Oh thats right, the people we elect.

Again why risk it by drinking at all if you are driving?

ninja900 wrote:

We already know that talking on a phone is comparable to driving at 80mg, but it's widespread and acceptable..

No it isnt, it's illegal.

biko

Even if you feel fine or a bit tired the next morning you're still not as good a driver as you are sober. What if you hurt someone, would you be able to forgive yourself?

Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_alcohol_content#Limits_by_country_.28BAC:_Blood_Alcohol_Content.29

cast_iron

Stekelly wrote:

Why drink at all if you know you are driving?

Well is one glass of wine with dinner really so bad? Or a bit of Xmas sherry trifle?
Or maybe we shouldn't be going out for dinner...couldn't we all stay in and cook?

Stekelly wrote:

ninja900 wrote:

We already know that talking on a phone is comparable to driving at 80mg, but it's widespread and acceptable..

No it isnt, it's illegal.

Legality and acceptability are not the same thing.

endplate

Is this tactic not another diversion stunt by our wonderful government by hiding the real problem of bad roads. I don't agree with drink driving but I feel that all this scare tactics are not going to reduce the deaths on the roads just like the introduction of penalty points which hasn't changed things. To avoid points you simply have to avoid speeding on relativly safe 2 or 3 lane roads during off peak times times in daylight hours

Has anybody any figures on the death toll in this country related to drink driving I am curious if it's different from speeding related deaths?

maidhc

endplate wrote:

I don't agree with drink driving but I feel that all this scare tactics are not going to reduce the deaths on the roads just like the introduction of penalty points which hasn't changed things.

It will just scare people who live in the coutryside into being teetotalers!

I rarely drink, not to mind drink and drive, but this crusade is going too far. Most people who obey the law are scared sh1tless already by random breah testing. Those that flout the law don't care what the limit is, not to mind whether or not it should be reduced.

Should we really punish those who obey the law by forcing them to get a taxi to half 12 mass on a sunday for fear of being caught, even though they only had a couple of pints the night before and probably have no alcohol in their system anyway?

Victor

As I understand it, the suggested 20mg limit is targeted at specific users, bus & HGV drivers, new drivers, etc.

endplate wrote:

Is this tactic not another diversion stunt by our wonderful government by hiding the real problem of bad roads.

If the road is bad, adjust your behavior to suit.

Has anybody any figures on the death toll in this country related to drink driving I am curious if it's different from speeding related deaths?

http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/News/Link_Between_Alcohol_and_Road_Deaths.html

Biro

At the end of the day whether people agree with the proposed new limit or not, I really can't see how it will save even one life. Maybe it will, and if so it's worth it. But I still reckon if they halved the number of laws and double the effort enforcing the remaining half we'd be better off overall. And get rid of half the judges aswell.
Introducing new laws just looks like you're making an effort, it doesn't mean that you are making an effort.

Victor

Biro wrote:

I really can't see how it will save even one life.

Did you bother to look at my link? 7% of drivers killed have BALs of 20-80.

Alcohol kills more people on Monday than Saturday.

Biro

Fair enough, I didn't look at the link, but point taken. Anyway, I do agree fully with the big efforts to reduce drink driving. But why should drug driving problems be left ignored? And why aren't there speed traps at 3am? And why aren't they breathalising outside remote pubs/niteclubs?

Stark

Biro wrote:

But why should drug driving problems be left ignored?

Drug driving is illegal but how do you test for it?

Biro

Would a blood test not show that up?

Sam Vimes

Stekelly wrote:

No it isnt, it's illegal.

[sarcasm]indeed. its illegal and therefore nobody does it and its completely socially stigmatised. just like cannabis. i've never met anyone that does that because its illegal[/sarcasm]

Sam Vimes

Biro wrote:

Would a blood test not show that up?

it would but the gardai don't carry around blood testing laboratories in their cars. the portable breath testers give them cause to arrest someone but if they just suspect someone is on drugs and a blood test back at the station says they're not they can be done for wrongful arrest

John R

Victor wrote:

As I understand it, the suggested 20mg limit is targeted at specific users, bus & HGV drivers, new drivers, etc.

That pretty much confirms the suspicions that this is nothing more than a cynical publicity stunt.

I would be in favour of a blanket 20mg limit but to target professional drivers and learners in isolation is nothing more than a vote whoring exercise. Appear to be getting tough without angering the regular middle aged voter who likes a few pints before driving home.

Is there any evidence to suggest that these groups are of higher risk than the general driving population? Somehow I doubt it, all the statistics I have seen show that drink driving is a bigger problem with the 35+ group than with learners.

In my experience most professional drivers are far more cautious about drink driving than the average driver, the penalties for getting done are too high.

ninty9er

I don't see why Gardaí can't be trained to take blood the same way as the people in the Blood Bank and have a testing machine in the patrol car....If they're trained there coulod be no objection to them doing it!!

gurramok

Victor wrote:

Did you bother to look at my link? 7% of drivers killed have BALs of 20-80.

Alcohol kills more people on Monday than Saturday.

Thats a misleading figure.

32% had ZERO alcohol, 2% between 1-19(4 drivers), 3% between 20-49(6 drivers), 4% between 50-79(8 drivers), and higher over 80.
It does not say if alcohol was primary factor in their deaths, it just gives an alcohol level, ie..they were not drunk enough to affect judgement in accidents..

Going lower than 50mg is ridiculous and will have no affect on RTA's, have a look at the affect on relative accident risk at http://www.80mg.org.uk/danger.html

ninty9er

gurramok wrote:

ie..they were not drunk enough to affect judgement in accidents..

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this drivel

Biro

Commander Vimes wrote:

it would but the gardai don't carry around blood testing laboratories in their cars. the portable breath testers give them cause to arrest someone but if they just suspect someone is on drugs and a blood test back at the station says they're not they can be done for wrongful arrest

There are medical devices now for diabetics where it does a tiny pinprick on the finger and manages to measure the blood-sugar levels with bearly a drop of blood. Surely they could come up with some similar device for drugs? I've no medical knowlege what-so-ever, so I don't know how much blood you need to get a reading.

ninty9er

Biro wrote:

There are medical devices now for diabetics where it does a tiny pinprick on the finger and manages to measure the blood-sugar levels with bearly a drop of blood. Surely they could come up with some similar device for drugs? I've no medical knowlege what-so-ever, so I don't know how much blood you need to get a reading.

That's exactly what I was trying to get at, you hit the nail on the head Biro;)

um7y1h83ge06nx

I'm totally against drink driving but having the limit at 20mg is a little OTT.

There is little room for error in that figure. I'm cautious about driving the next day but with this small figure, it's hard to know when you may be fit to drive the day after a night out.

If this law is introduced, the government should make subsidised, but reliable home breathalysers available to the general public.

This would help people like myself stay on the right side of the law.

Biro

Charli Low Cursor wrote:

I'm totally against drink driving but having the limit at 20mg is a little OTT.

There is little room for error in that figure. I'm cautious about driving the next day but with this small figure, it's hard to know when you may be fit to drive the day after a night out.

If this law is introduced, the government should make subsidised, but reliable home breathalysers available to the general public.

This would help people like myself stay on the right side of the law.

I'd tend to agree with this post. How low is 20mg anyway? I mean if you used an alcohol based medicine for a mouth ulcer would that read in a breath test?
I rarely go out anymore, but was out recently and had 4 or 5 pints over about 3.5 hours, last one at maybe 1:30am. Left the car at home the following morning knowing that I shouldn't drive, thats sound. Had a big breakfast. Then later, had a full dinner at about half 1 in the day. Then collected the car on the way back to work. But really, I have no idea if that was leaving it long enough. My instinct says that I would be well clear at that stage, but does it mean that I'm a menace to society and a blaguard and a killer because I collected my car at lunch time?
Personally, I don't think I did anything irresponsible, but I'm waiting for someone now to tell me I did. Maybe they're right.

endplate

Victor wrote:

If the road is bad, adjust your behavior to suit.

http://www.rsa.ie/NEWS/News/Link_Between_Alcohol_and_Road_Deaths.html

That's a very dismissive statement, something like Martin Cullen would say

People make mistakes no matter how sober they are. What about people who are unfamilar with a section of road and get caught out in a so called accident black spot it's not necessarly that persons fault the government were only able to put a sign up (yes signs can be missed) rather than fix the problem

BTW thanks for the link

ArphaRima

I've no medical knowlege what-so-ever, so I don't know how much blood you need to get a reading.

Neither do the Gardai. I would not allow a Garda to take a blood sample from me using any device. They could demand one, but I would refuse all except from a qualified nurse or doctor in a sanitised environment.
The side of the road on a pissy saturday night, from a grubby country garda is not the same thing.

Hotblack Desiato

Victor wrote:

Did you bother to look at my link? 7% of drivers killed have BALs of 20-80.

Seems to me they're assuming that alcohol is a contributory factor to the accident in ALL accidents where there is a detectable alcohol level. That makes a mockery of any attempt to gather meaningful statistics. You might as well say that 10% of drivers in crashes have red hair therefore red hair is a contributory factor in 10% of road accidents.

Now if you did a study and showed that redhead drivers are involved in 10% of accidents but only make up 5% of the population, you could infer that they're worse drivers than average (sorry redheads, don't take this personally!)

Short of stopping lots of drivers, not involved in accidents, at random and recording their BAC to provide a control, the statement that 7% of drivers in crashes had a certain BAC level proves nothing.

Guy:Incognito

endplate wrote:

People make mistakes no matter how sober they are.

Exactly, and the point is not to mulpiply your chances of haveing/causing a crash by drinking. Theres plenty of crashes that dont involve drink so adding to it by drinking is stupid.

endplate

Stekelly wrote:

Exactly, and the point is not to mulpiply your chances of haveing/causing a crash by drinking. Theres plenty of crashes that dont involve drink so adding to it by drinking is stupid.

I'm not condoning any amount of alcohol in the bloodstream in any way. I do know that it has a bearing on driver preformance. My point is lowering the the drink driving limit is not going to make a difference if you normally drive after a few pints you will be over the limit no matter what it is.

That's why I think it's a diversion tactic and a bit of electioneering by our present Government. How come you never see speed traps on the back roads where the deaths are occuring. The reason is the Government is putting pressure on our Garda force to catch speeders and the easiest way is to sit on safer 2 or 3 lane carraigeways and catch people 5km/h over the limit

Lafortezza

How do you go about estimating if you would be over the limit the morning after a night in the pub?
Say 5 pints + food, bed by midnight, up at 8am and drive to work with no breakfast. 6ft 15st male.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

overdriver

I have to say, the notion of professional drivers having a really low limit - basically one which only allows for a slight residue from the night before, seems to me to be a good thing, vote whoring ( which is no doubt the case) or not.

ninty9er

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It seems you took me up wrong, I was talking about a pointing finger pin prick, not full scale blood donation....and only in relation to suspected drug driving, brethalyser for drink driving still

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

or just use the ones most pubs provide.

Doesn't affect me for Christmas, since the tonsilitis fairy has sentenced me to 10 days on fanta while I run my course of (non-drowsy) anti-biotics.

biko

lafortezza wrote:

How do you go about estimating if you would be over the limit the morning after a night in the pub?
Say 5 pints + food, bed by midnight, up at 8am and drive to work with no breakfast. 6ft 15st male.

http://www.saferdrive.ie/?gclid=CLDd6LrxoIkCFUB-MAod6USaOw
http://saferdrive.ie/further_information/the_morning_after.html

MrPudding

overdriver wrote:

I have to say, the notion of professional drivers having a really low limit - basically one which only allows for a slight residue from the night before, seems to me to be a good thing, vote whoring ( which is no doubt the case) or not.

How many professional drivers have been involved in incidents and subsequently been found to have blood alcohol levels lower than 80mg?

MrP

cormac_byrne

lafortezza wrote:

How do you go about estimating if you would be over the limit the morning after a night in the pub?
Say 5 pints + food, bed by midnight, up at 8am and drive to work with no breakfast. 6ft 15st male.

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=946

2 hours per pint + 1 hour => alcohol free @ 11am

biko

cormac_byrne wrote:

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=946
2 hours per pint + 1 hour => alcohol free @ 11am

Drink 4 pints of Stella and you can’t drive for at least 13 hours from finishing your last pint. If you finish at midnight, you aren’t safe until after 1pm the next day.

I know a fair few ppl that would get up at 8 and drive to work after 4-5 pints the night before.

ArphaRima

I didnt look at the links, but Im pretty sure its along the lines of the following based on what I've learnt.
One pint of beer is 2 units. We process alcohol at 1 unit an hour. Eating slows our absorption of the alcohol. Both before and after. Sleeping also slows your absorption/processing. Worst case scenario is if you eat heavily, drink heavily, and then sleep heavily before being measured. Exactly when most people would reckon you'd be safest.
Ironically its best if you've eaten nothing and dont sleep. It might make you road legal, but I doubt it would make you safer.

cormac_byrne

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=946
2 hours per pint + 1 hour => alcohol free @ 11am

The calculations seem to say you would be alcohol free by 11am.
If that's true you could drive a bit before that as you don't need to be at zero alcohol but anything below the 80mg limit.

Also it doesn't seem to take into account the amount of alcohol absorbed while drinking. i.e some or all of your first pint already absorbed by the time you finish your drinking session.

So you could be ok at 8am (but cutting it very fine)