Rural Drink Driving

MadsL

posted this in politics - but would like a petrolhead point of view...

A new scheme to help rural pubs hit by stricter drink driving laws could be introduced in the next few months. Rural Affairs Minister Eamon O'Cuiv has said the Government will be introducing the measure before the next general election.

Publicans in isolated areas have been complaining about a loss in business since the introduction of mandatory breath-testing last year and are calling for the establishment of public transport services.

Is he for real??
Does anyone think that with Health Service in it's current state we (your taxes for taxis folks) should be subsidising booze cruises for poor deprived 'isolated' areas. My fecking heart bleeds.

Can't believe the opposition (for want of a better term) haven't savaged them on this.

Of course according to a poll for Newstalk today, nearly half (40%) of TDs believe random breath testing in the mornings is a waste of Garda time.

Anyone else outraged?

Seth Brundle

Its gas!
Rural people are allergic to non alcoholic drinks!

Im actually surprised that there hasn't been more of a drive by the breweries to make/market more non alco drinks.

ninty9er

Haven't they heard of designated drivers. I have gone (round trip) 12 miles out of my way to drop a friend home.....It works in cities so stop complaing ya bunch a fu8*in rural alcos

Guy:Incognito

It's the publicans doign the moaning, why dotn they fund the busses themselves?

If they are losign so much money they woul make back much more than the cost of having a minibus on the road roudign up punters who would effectivly drink for as long as the publican wants before shipping them off home. They cant be that hard up if they arnt willign to do anythign about it.


Plus the fact that people are only seeing other people at all in pubs is more a reflection on the people than the drink drive laws.

RobAMerc

Obviously the bit "before the next election" is the phrase that pays here.

Theres votes in this - nothing else.

overdriver

A couple of the pubs I play in - most notably The Hatchet in Summerhill, the owners have gotten PSV licences and have MPV's to take punters home after a night's boozing.

Great idea, and a good solution to this problem.

peasant

Having lived in the very back of beyonds for a while, I can understand the issue ...the "local" (even if it is miles away) really is a vital part of community life, especially so in dispersed settlements.

What I don't understand is that everybody sees a need to actually drink alcohol when going to the pub.

When I used to live rural, I did drive to the pub (walking really was out of the question), had one slow pint and then switched to fizzies ...same like I've always done, ever since I started driving.

While offering taxis/minibuses/ designated driver programmes etc is one option, another one is to get away from the booze culture in the pub and offer alternatives. Nice coffes / teas, snacks, fruit juice cocktails etc.
Not having a pint is difficult if the only alternatives are Ballygowan or the ghastly "Rock Shandy"
(Together with the smoking ban, this might actually have some positive health effects:D )

Seth Brundle

Stekelly wrote:

It's the publicans doign the moaning, why dotn they fund the busses themselves?

Its not just the publicans but many politicians (who are meant to represent their electorate) are voicing concerns. We have had several politicians in recent months complaining about the enforcement of the law!

RobAMerc wrote:

Theres votes in this - nothing else.

That sums it up! Politicians should be leading by example when it comes to this not whinging because people refuse to change!

Guy:Incognito

kbannon wrote:

Its not just the publicans but many politicians (who are meant to represent their electorate) are voicing concerns. We have had several politicians in recent months complaining about the enforcement of the law!

Yes but at the end of the day the publicans are losing money (or claiming to be) but dont seem willing to do anything about it bar moan.

Seth Brundle

There are many publicans who are not doing well out there but this is down to issues with crappy social policy etc which is not for this forum. However, the simple fact of the matter is that people including our legislators are saying that the law is being enforced too strictly (I haven't seen a breathalyser checkpoint for a while - day or night).
I strongly disagree with the proposal that I should subsidise a means of transport solely so that someones desire to drink one product over another is satisfied.

ninty9er

kbannon wrote:

There are many publicans who are not doing well out there but this is down to issues with crappy social policy etc which is not for this forum. However, the simple fact of the matter is that people including our legislators are saying that the law is being enforced too strictly (I haven't seen a breathalyser checkpoint for a while - day or night).
I strongly disagree with the proposal that I should subsidise a means of transport solely so that someones desire to drink one product over another is satisfied.

DING DING DING

We have a winner....Agree 99.9% with what you said. The .01% is the social policy part. Social policy is welfare related more than behaviour related and I don't think people will change the habits of a lifetime according to social policy...most smokers still smoke when out....and drag everyone else outside with them

gyppo

Firstly, anyone with an ounce of sense could not condone drink driving.

However, its all very well for our urbanites here to dismiss claims of subsidised booze cruises, having the choice of public transport/taxis/hackneys, etc..

Are rural dwellers not entitled to some basic form of public transport?
Do rural dwellers not contribute to the state funds in the same way as everyone else?

XJR

I regularly spend time in an isolated area in the west. The nearest house is about 500m and the nearest pub a good 45 minutes walk,the nearest town is 10km. Ten years ago the local was "busy" most nights but now its busiest night wouldn't match a midweek night then.

Most of the people you see in there live within a 2 or 3km distance and have a few pints and drive home on quiet country roads. There is no other option if they want to have a pint. Are they a danger to life and limb? To be honest I don't think so. Are they drunk? No . Are they over the limit ? Possibly.

I think the problem is that the government is trying a one size fits all solution to road safety. The issue is not the local farmer who has less than a handfull of pints and drives home the issue is the guy who has two fistfulls and then drives home.

It might be interesting to see the breakdown of accidents where alcohol is a primary cause as opposed to a "contirbuting factor" and have it broken down by area, age and alcohol level, but that will never happen as it's easier to blame the demon drink than deal with issues such as young male dirvers, inexperienced drivers and the apallingly poor quality of driver training in this country.

I don't suggest that we should have the right to go out have a rake of pints and then drive home, but I do say that there is a big difference between three or four pints then driving home and having double that and driving home. Show us the statistics and then maybe we'll know - but of course that wont happen.

Guy:Incognito

XJR wrote:

Most of the people you see in there live within a 2 or 3km distance and have a few pints and drive home on quiet country roads. There is no other option if they want to have a pint. Are they a danger to life and limb? To be honest I don't think so. Are they drunk? No . Are they over the limit ? Possibly.

There is a pub 1 km away from my house at the top of my estate. After 10 or so at night there is little or no traffic around. Should I be allowed drive to the pub and back?

If every 5 of the people took it in turns one at a time they could carpool and only have to not drink 1 in 5 visits to the pub? Is it too much to ask for them to do this?

Guy:Incognito

XJR wrote:

I think the problem is that the government is trying a one size fits all solution to road safety. The issue is not the local farmer who has less than a handfull of pints and drives home the issue is the guy who has two fistfulls and then drives home.

It might be interesting to see the breakdown of accidents where alcohol is a primary cause as opposed to a "contirbuting factor" and have it broken down by area, age and alcohol level, but that will never happen as it's easier to blame the demon drink than deal with issues such as young male dirvers, inexperienced drivers and the apallingly poor quality of driver training in this country.

So where do you set the limit? How do you define "less than a handfull".

It's like saying that different cars that are capable of handling higher speeds should have their own speed limits.

Is a "contributing factor" not enough to warrant a problem? If your child was killed and alcohol was deemed to be a "contributing factor" would you be happy that your child would have been killed whether the person was drinking or not?

Stephen

There's no excuse for drinking and driving. All this bleating from the politicians is just fishing for votes.
I live in Kilkenny. Most rural townlands around here have some kind of taxi/hackney service available, so WTF is the problem?

ninty9er

XJR wrote:

I regularly spend time in an isolated area in the west. The nearest house is about 500m and the nearest pub a good 45 minutes walk,the nearest town is 10km. Ten years ago the local was "busy" most nights but now its busiest night wouldn't match a midweek night then.

Most of the people you see in there live within a 2 or 3km distance and have a few pints and drive home on quiet country roads. There is no other option if they want to have a pint. Are they a danger to life and limb? To be honest I don't think so. Are they drunk? No . Are they over the limit ? Possibly.

I think the problem is that the government is trying a one size fits all solution to road safety. The issue is not the local farmer who has less than a handfull of pints and drives home the issue is the guy who has two fistfulls and then drives home.

It might be interesting to see the breakdown of accidents where alcohol is a primary cause as opposed to a "contirbuting factor" and have it broken down by area, age and alcohol level, but that will never happen as it's easier to blame the demon drink than deal with issues such as young male dirvers, inexperienced drivers and the apallingly poor quality of driver training in this country.

I don't suggest that we should have the right to go out have a rake of pints and then drive home, but I do say that there is a big difference between three or four pints then driving home and having double that and driving home. Show us the statistics and then maybe we'll know - but of course that wont happen.

Are you barking mad.

Why is it that someone cannot go to a pub and drink a coke, fanta or 7up rather than a guiness, heineken or bulmers

you speak of young male drivers but it's metalities such as the one you put foreward here need the growing up

maidhc

XJR wrote:

I regularly spend time in an isolated area in the west. The nearest house is about 500m and the nearest pub a good 45 minutes walk,the nearest town is 10km. Ten years ago the local was "busy" most nights but now its busiest night wouldn't match a midweek night then.

Most of the people you see in there live within a 2 or 3km distance and have a few pints and drive home on quiet country roads. There is no other option if they want to have a pint. Are they a danger to life and limb? To be honest I don't think so. Are they drunk? No . Are they over the limit ? Possibly.

I think the problem is that the government is trying a one size fits all solution to road safety. The issue is not the local farmer who has less than a handfull of pints and drives home the issue is the guy who has two fistfulls and then drives home.

It might be interesting to see the breakdown of accidents where alcohol is a primary cause as opposed to a "contirbuting factor" and have it broken down by area, age and alcohol level, but that will never happen as it's easier to blame the demon drink than deal with issues such as young male dirvers, inexperienced drivers and the apallingly poor quality of driver training in this country.

I don't suggest that we should have the right to go out have a rake of pints and then drive home, but I do say that there is a big difference between three or four pints then driving home and having double that and driving home. Show us the statistics and then maybe we'll know - but of course that wont happen.

Most won't, but I agree.

Even Gay Byrne seems to agree. He admitted on the radio it was harsh, and went so far as to say that the chances of getting caught in a remote part of Donegal were remote!

MadsL

Most of the people you see in there live within a 2 or 3km distance and have a few pints and drive home on quiet country roads. There is no other option if they want to have a pint. Are they a danger to life and limb? To be honest I don't think so. Are they drunk? No . Are they over the limit ? Possibly.

A driver with a blood-alcohol level of 0.10 or higher is seven times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than a driver who has not been drinking, the CDC said. Researchers said drunken drivers are also less likely to wear seat belts.

http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Health/health24.htm

You are twiceas likely to be killed in fatal road accident in a rural area.
Thirty-two per cent of all fatal accidents in 2000 occurred on urban roads. The proportion of fatal accidents occurring on rural roads fell by two percentage points to 68%
http://www.nra.ie/PublicationsResources/DownloadableDocumentation/RoadSafety/file,187,en.PDF (page 10)

Time to get real.

Seth Brundle

gyppo wrote:

However, its all very well for our urbanites here to dismiss claims of subsidised booze cruises, having the choice of public transport/taxis/hackneys, etc..

Are rural dwellers not entitled to some basic form of public transport?
Do rural dwellers not contribute to the state funds in the same way as everyone else?

As I said in a similar thread in commuting/transport, if I get a chance to go out I meed my friends on the other side of Dublin. My options to get home are:
* 2 busses (and the usual waits) assuming public transport is operating - trains & busses heading into the city tend to stop about 11:30!
* taxi (at a cost of about €40 or €50)
* drive myself (which means that I can't drink alcohol)
Realistically, option 3 is the only viable option and Im quite happy to do this. I drink Becks, Holsten or Erdinger N/A or else minerals or coffee.
My travel home is not subsidised! Why should I be treated differently.
Also as Im driving I can give friends a lift home if needed.
Answer me this, why can't rural dwellers get a taxi (if available), get a lift off a friend who is not drinking or just not drink and drive?

Stark

XJR wrote:

Most of the people you see in there live within a 2 or 3km distance and have a few pints and drive home on quiet country roads. There is no other option if they want to have a pint. Are they a danger to life and limb? To be honest I don't think so. Are they drunk? No . Are they over the limit ? Possibly.

If they live within 2km or 3km, why can't they walk? It's what? 20 or 30 mins walk? I suppose they considered themselves too polluted to stumble home without falling into the ditch but not too polluted to get behind a wheel.

XJR wrote:

I don't suggest that we should have the right to go out have a rake of pints and then drive home, but I do say that there is a big difference between three or four pints then driving home and having double that and driving home. Show us the statistics and then maybe we'll know - but of course that wont happen.

3 or 4 pints over the course of several hours can actually leave a decently sized male under the limit. (Not that I'd recommend it to anyone, the legal limit is actually dangerously high). The people who are being hit by the enforcement laws are the ones driving home sloshed and you know it. I've heard plenty of stories from friends who were driving home in rural areas at night and encountered drunk drivers heading straight for them on their side of the road and were forced into the ditch. But sure as long as noone was "killed", then it's "perfectly safe" of course.

The arguments on the thread remind me of the arguments of this idiot:

http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=ireland-qqqm=ireland-qqqa=ireland-qqqid=22656-qqqx=1.asp?rss=yes

but Johnny or Mick or Paddy going home after his half-one and glass of stout is no danger to the safety of people on the roads. I have an issue with boy racers. They’re targeting the wrong areas.

Poor Mick or Paddy with his one and a half glasses of stout. You'd think he was subject to a 0% blood alcohol limit or something. Completely disregard the fact that the gardaí are targetting people with blood alcohol limits of 80mg/l and above, not those who have had a trivial amount to drink. At that level of alcohol, you're starting to suffer from slurred speech and loss of balance, ie: you are drunk. But of course, as long as there are boy racers on the road, two wrongs make a right.

“People who go for their social drink are no danger whatsoever to road safety. It makes a mockery of the law when there are fellas in high-powered cars, high on drugs and causing accidents.”

Yes, the people with one drink are not the issue. Of course completely disregard again that they're not being targetted, it's the people who are drunk.

According to the Fine Gael member of South Tipperary County Council, the fear of being caught the morning after a night out is always present.

“You take a couple going out for a meal and a drink who get a taxi home.

“They could spend a fortune on taxi fare and be bagged the next morning and lose their jobs.”

I'd like to meet this magical couple who can have a glass of wine and a meal and still be drunk 8 hours later. Again with the sob story that bears no relation to what's actually happening.

XJR

MadsL wrote:

http://www.iol.ie/~afifi/BICNews/Health/health24.htm

You are twiceas likely to be killed in fatal road accident in a rural area.
Thirty-two per cent of all fatal accidents in 2000 occurred on urban roads. The proportion of fatal accidents occurring on rural roads fell by two percentage points to 68%
http://www.nra.ie/PublicationsResources/DownloadableDocumentation/RoadSafety/file,187,en.PDF (page 10)

Time to get real.

I'm not doubting the statistics you quote but all they are only statistics with no analysis of the reasons behind them.

There is absolutely no granularity in the statistics we are offered. Alcohol being a factor could mean alcohol in the blood but not over the limit nor anywhere near it. It may also mean it had no contributing factor. The fact is we don't actuallly know because like speeding the government is using (as do most others) a broad brush stroke approach to the issue.

It's like saying "speeding kills" or "drugs kill" both statements are true to some extent but they only tell half the story.

MadsL

It's like saying "speeding kills" or "drugs kill" both statements are true to some extent but they only tell half the story

I take your point...epecially with regards to speed etc...but the fact remains that there is a rural culture that seems to be becoming more vocal that seems to want to justify getting behind the wheel of a car pissed.

There is no excuse for drinking and driving at over 80mg. EVER.

I'm sorry but the ridiculous of 'it's a bit lonely at the farm and then I went to the pub, but they forced me to have 6 pints' excuse doesn't wash.

event

not condoning drink driving at any level. If you drink and are over the limit, you derserve to get done

for the people critisising the plans, can you tell me where you live?

for most people in rural areas, this is their socialising. If they dont go to the pub, they dont see their friends. In a lot of areas, people are scattered all over the place. You might live in an area and if you had to collect your friends, one might be 4 mile north of you, then another is 3 mile west of that, then the pub is a further 3 mile south of your house. thats quite a journey.

i dont see the major outcry at this

MadsL

If they dont go to the pub, they dont see their friends.

So go to the pub. Last time I checked it was not compulsory to drink alcohol in a pub.

I would rather see the money that this 'scheme' would cost being 'spent' on zero rating VAT on non-alcoholic drinks.

NeMiSiS

"I would rather see the money that this 'scheme' would cost being 'spent' on zero rating VAT on non-alcoholic drinks."
That's a very good idea.
TK

event

MadsL wrote:

So go to the pub. Last time I checked it was not compulsory to drink alcohol in a pub.

I would rather see the money that this 'scheme' would cost being 'spent' on zero rating VAT on non-alcoholic drinks.

its not that easy. This is their only pastime for a lot of rural people, there is nothing else to do.

and for people who say thats pathetic or anything, what are your hobbies or interests?

Gregor Samsa

event wrote:

This is their only pastime for a lot of rural people, there is nothing else to do.

and for people who say thats pathetic or anything, what are your hobbies or interests?

Access to my hobbies and interests doesn't get subsidised by the State.

And anyhow, are you saying that drinking alcohol (as opposed to 'socially' visiting the pub) is the only passtime for many rural people? If so, it's not for me to tell them not to do it, but also not for me to pay for it.

conor_mc

phutyle wrote:

Access to my hobbies and interests doesn't get subsidised by the State.

And anyhow, are you saying that drinking alcohol (as opposed to 'socially' visiting the pub) is the only passtime for many rural people? If so, it's not for me to tell them not to do it, but also not for me to pay for it.

Dear Bertie,

Please find enclosed a cheque for €300 so that you can buy Johhny or Mick or Paddy a new set of golf clubs or something. I'm worried about the poor aul fellas cos they don't seem to be getting out of the house that much now that their social lives have been devastated by your anti-smoking and anti-drink-driving measures.

By the way, may I be the first to suggest a drink-driving amnesty on Election Day - at least the lads can get together for a few pints once every four years, eh?!?!!

Regards,

Your Friendly Rural TD.

layke

I live in Dublin. Where's my free bus home after work that i'm paying for?

As for the pubs being the heart and soul of a village? Well imo using that argument makes you sound like a bunch of alcoholics who need help to stop drinking.

FFS if I have to be the designated driver every so often so should you!

hawker

It's actually quite amusing seeing all the urbanites having a moan because the ruralites are getting something.

Moaning about the taxpayers paying for this new scheme. Will it directly affect the tax you pay each week? Did the taxpayer not pay for your Luas which makes daily life easier for the Dubs? Why shouldn't the taxpayer pay for something that will make daily life easier for the ruralite?

Believe it or not there is life beyond the pale.

Gregor Samsa

hawker wrote:

It's actually quite amusing seeing all the urbanites having a moan because the ruralites are getting something.

I live in a rural area in the West.

hawker wrote:

Will it directly affect the tax you pay each week?

Tax has to come from somewhere, so either that or something else doesn't get funded.

hawker wrote:

Did the taxpayer not pay for your Luas which makes daily life easier for the Dubs?

It's more than paying for itself (and paying back the tax investment) through fare revenue.

hawker wrote:

Why shouldn't the taxpayer pay for something that will make daily life easier for the ruralite?

You mean "Why shouldn't the taxpayer pay for something that will make profits easier for the publicans?".

:rolleyes:

event

layke wrote:

I live in Dublin. Where's my free bus home after work that i'm paying for?

As for the pubs being the heart and soul of a village? Well imo using that argument makes you sound like a bunch of alcoholics who need help to stop drinking.

FFS if I have to be the designated driver every so often so should you!

BTW, im not from a rural area

tax doesnt always pay for what we want, ok?

DeepBlue

MadsL wrote:

A new scheme to help rural pubs hit by stricter drink driving laws could be introduced in the next few months. Rural Affairs Minister Eamon O'Cuiv has said the Government will be introducing the measure before the next general election.

Anyone else outraged?

So the Minister announces a scheme (no doubt inspired by Victor ) whereby there will be improved public transport in rural areas in the evening and nighttime and it warrants outrage?
I guess it depends how you look at it.

Some advantages of the scheme:

1. Gives rural drinkers another option to ensure they can travel home from the pub safely and without breaking any drink driving laws.
2. Because of 1. pedestrians and other road users are safer as it will lessen the number of drivers on the road who have taken drink (whether or not they are under or over the legal limit) and thus will improve road safety for those road users. This will mean that lives will be saved.
3. Improves the social life of the rural community as the rural pub is the focus of that social life for many.
4. Relieves isolation of some people in rural communities who may otherwise have few alternative options to socialise.
5. Will cost a modest amount of money.
6. Will help publicans thus helping businesses survive and safeguard jobs and livelihoods.

Some disadvantages of the scheme:

1. Will help publicans .
2. Will cost a modest amount of money .

ninty9er

hawker wrote:

It's actually quite amusing seeing all the urbanites having a moan because the ruralites are getting something.

Moaning about the taxpayers paying for this new scheme. Will it directly affect the tax you pay each week?

Yes, but one of my friends in particular is teetotal, he doesn't drive and lives 8 miles from the City in a very, very isolated part of a village. so that means on a saturday night out with us:

1. He has to ring his parents at 2:30am to come and collect him
2. He has to queue for 1.5 hours for a taxi and pay €25
3. one of us who does drive doesn't drink either and gives him a lift home.

All 3 have been done and will continue to be done. He doesn't complain, it's the way things are.

I can walk home from town pissed it'll take about 15 mins more than usual because of the conversation and drunken laid-back attitude, I'll also walk to work the following morning if I've been heavy at it.

hawker wrote:

Did the taxpayer not pay for your Luas which makes daily life easier for the Dubs? Why shouldn't the taxpayer pay for something that will make daily life easier for the ruralite?

Believe it or not there is life beyond the pale.

I live in Limerick, I don't have a LUAS. Taxi is my only option after 10:40pm on a Saturday. I live one mile from the city centre and it'll cost €6.50

Why should rural dwellers get free taxis when we urban dwellers have to pay for them.

MadsL wrote:

So go to the pub. Last time I checked it was not compulsory to drink alcohol in a pub.

I would rather see the money that this 'scheme' would cost being 'spent' on zero rating VAT on non-alcoholic drinks.

Ógra Fianna Fáil has been on at the senior party to do this for at least 3 years. If they don't listen to us, they're not going to listen to Joe Public, but we will continue to raise the issue at Ard-Fheiseanna and Conferences until it is done

cpoh1

This thread is just plain barking mad. There are some eejits on here who are actually condoning drink driving (XJR, maidhc). These same fellas are the ones on here who probably complain about lane hogging, not indicating etc. Twisted priorities or what!

I have a name for someone who cant go to a pub without having a drink, theyre called alcoholics and need help. There is no excuse for drink driving, EVER.

Its like everything in life, id love a second house and third car but dont have the money. Theses fellas would love to drive to the pub have half a dozen pints and drive home, well you just cant have that either. Deal with it. Like everything in life a sacrifice must be made, either get a lift, walk or drive and dont drink. If you dont like that then move to the city, move to south america or build a pub in your garage at home.

I have a doctor friend in an accident and emergency ward in Cork and suffice to say the amount of serious casualties streaming into him on a regular basis from drink driving cases is crazy. And theyre not all younge fellas either. The newspapers only ever talk about the fatalities, there are thousands getting seriously injured in this country because of drink related driving accidents.

dahamsta

There's plenty barking mad on both sides of the fence here. I doubt they realise it, but the "can ye not go to the pub and have a mineral" camp sound like puritan loonies.

lightening

dahamsta wrote:

but the "can ye not go to the pub and have a mineral" camp sound like puritan loonies.

That is what people do though... all the time. It may seem alien to you, but people in citys have to do this. A different person each time.

We have waited in taxi ranks for three hours.
We have walked six miles to get home.
We have had to drink cocacola all night, till two in the morning when being the designated driver.

This is the way it is, get used to it. I have family in the country and I have seen young fit men getting in to cars buckled drunk to drive a miserable two miles home in the middle of summer, thats just plain greedy and mean spirited. The funny thing was, they sneered at us for walking!

ninty9er

dahamsta wrote:

the "can ye not go to the pub and have a mineral" camp sound like puritan loonies.

Not really, I can go out to numerous pubs & a club on a night out and not drink because I'm driving, other nights I don't drive and would engage in what might be called abuse of the liver in the 1st degree

Seth Brundle

why is that?
If they are desperate to get to the pub but don't want to lose their licence, yet have no option but to drive then what would you suggest?

layke

hawker wrote:

It's actually quite amusing seeing all the urbanites having a moan because the ruralites are getting something.

Moaning about the taxpayers paying for this new scheme. Will it directly affect the tax you pay each week? Did the taxpayer not pay for your Luas which makes daily life easier for the Dubs? Why shouldn't the taxpayer pay for something that will make daily life easier for the ruralite?

Believe it or not there is life beyond the pale.

The Lúas is a necessity for relieving traffic congestion and in return makes money. We still have to pay for it and only runs till 12:30 I believe. We have a Nitelink bus that operates from 2, 3 and 4am to some areas in Dublin.

I would like to point that we still have to pay a fare to use these services where as yours is free.

I'm all for a public service (and quite happy about it) if you are willing to cough up for it. This is the very reason everyone is getting their knickers in a twist over the proposal.

event

lightening wrote:

That is what people do though... all the time. It may seem alien to you, but people in citys have to do this. A different person each time.

We have waited in taxi ranks for three hours.
We have walked six miles to get home.
We have had to drink cocacola all night, till two in the morning when being the designated driver.

This is the way it is, get used to it. I have family in the country and I have seen young fit men getting in to cars buckled drunk to drive a miserable two miles home in the middle of summer, thats just plain greedy and mean spirited. The funny thing was, they sneered at us for walking!

again, im not condoning drink driving, but people in teh city have other things to do

they can go to a cafe
go to the cinema
go to a library
go shopping
etc etc

people in the country do not have this

rubadub

gyppo wrote:

However, its all very well for our urbanites here to dismiss claims of subsidised booze cruises, having the choice of public transport/taxis/hackneys, etc..

Are rural dwellers not entitled to some basic form of public transport?
Do rural dwellers not contribute to the state funds in the same way as everyone else?

Taxis & hackneys are available where there is demand. Public transport is supplied to meet demand. I live in an urban area and cannot get a bus to many places I wish to go either, one service I did use had 2 buses per day. If it was economically viable to supply public transport I see no problem. Services get cancelled in urban areas but I do not hear many demanding free transport to unserviced areas. If taximen thought it was economically viable they would be available. The price of housing is based a lot on location and available amenitities.

Why is a standard 3 bed house so much more expensive in dublin than in the countryside? Many buy houses outside dublin thinking they are saving a fortune and then realise the extra costs and lack of conveniences they must suffer and end up with roughly the same actual cost of living/quality of life. You can't have your cake and eat it to, it goes both ways. Should the government be offering me money back on the additional cost of my house?

I was genuinely shocked at a news report on this, I switched on the news (think TV3) and they were interviewing people on the street. I seriously thought some pub or town had been overrun by scumbags or criminal gangs. People were saying "people are now scared to leave their homes", "People cannot visit the pub anymore out of utter fear". I couldnt believe it when I realised they were talking about drink driving. It was like "everything was fine before, we got slaughtered and drove home, now I live in fear of being caught breaking the law".

If providing transport was economically viable it should be done, as mentioned before there is nothing to stop the publican doing this himself or supplying transport. I remember many moons ago there were free buses going to the nightclub in leopardstown racecourse. Maybe they realise that their profits cannot support such a service, therefore they must face facts and see it is time to close shop. I am sure many businesses would love to have a free transport service provided for them which would raise their own profits. Fundamentally these publicans are selling drugs in drug dens, many choose not to drink the alcohol but the demanding of free transport is so people who willingly take drugs are not breaking the law on the way home. Are we to breathalyze passengers on the free transport and only let alcohol abusers on? In a way penalising people who engage in drug free activities? Should free transport be available to rural football teams who meet up socially yet do not drink, or do they have to start abusing drugs or claiming they do to get a free ride.

I regularly walk 3.5miles to some pubs, I always walk to my local which is over 1 mile away.

dahamsta

My point is not that people should drink and drive - only a fool would think that, obviously we have quite a few of them here - but that the people screaming for us all to go to the pub and drink minerals are so vehement and arrogant in their comments they sound like card-carrying puritans that think we'll all burn in hell for our hard-drinking ways.

Could the moderator not make an attempt to, you know, moderate? Why is the moderation in Motors always so woefully bad, for that matter? How many years are we here now and a rule against foglight rants has only just been implemented? Seriously, is it five? Seven?

Perhaps it's time I unsubscribed anyway, between the thou-shalt-not-anything puritans, the gullible Speed Kills idiots, the flat-cap Skoda drivers and the Bebo-posting morons, I'd say there isn't a normal driver left at this stage.

adam

md99

kbannon wrote:

As I said in a similar thread in commuting/transport, if I get a chance to go out I meed my friends on the other side of Dublin. My options to get home are:
* 2 busses (and the usual waits) assuming public transport is operating - trains & busses heading into the city tend to stop about 11:30!
* taxi (at a cost of about €40 or €50)
* drive myself (which means that I can't drink alcohol)
Realistically, option 3 is the only viable option and Im quite happy to do this. I drink Becks, Holsten or Erdinger N/A or else minerals or coffee.
My travel home is not subsidised! Why should I be treated differently.
Also as Im driving I can give friends a lift home if needed.
Answer me this, why can't rural dwellers get a taxi (if available), get a lift off a friend who is not drinking or just not drink and drive?

If taxis were available to these rural drinkers then there would be no debate over the issue.

Also might I add that many of us do not share in your willingness to stay sober on a night out!

rubadub

md99 wrote:

If taxis were available to these rural drinkers then there would be no debate over the issue.

Is there some law preventing taximen servicing these rural drinkers? Are they not free to choose where they operate or something? Do you know any taximen, have they ever told you why they do not serve rural drinkers?

Or do you think the government should somehow force people to work in particular areas even if it is not economically viable for them?

I bet there are less available local hairdressers in rural areas, should they be forced to open, or should there be free transport to and from them so Mary can catch up on the latest gossip, it is her only social outlet after all.

miju

md99 wrote:

If taxis were available to these rural drinkers then there would be no debate over the issue.

Also might I add that many of us do not share in your willingness to stay sober on a night out!

i do be down in ennis very regularly , i always get a taxi to a home i stay about 5 miles out of town , while all the locals who i've just been on the rip with have no bother tearing on off up the road towards Quin pissed out of their heads at well over 80kmh , so sorry no dice on this point

Seth Brundle

event wrote:

again, im not condoning drink driving, but people in teh city have other things to do

they can go to a cafe
go to the cinema
go to a library
go shopping
etc etc

people in the country do not have this

I really don't see how this argument has anything to do with drink driving!

dahamsta wrote:

but that the people screaming for us all to go to the pub and drink minerals are so vehement and arrogant in their comments they sound like card-carrying puritans that think we'll all burn in hell for our hard-drinking ways.

:rolleyes:

dahamsta wrote:

Could the moderator not make an attempt to, you know, moderate? Why is the moderation in Motors always so woefully bad, for that matter? How many years are we here now and a rule against foglight rants has only just been implemented? Seriously, is it five? Seven?

do you mean that this thread requires additional moderation just because you disagree over an issue?

md99 wrote:

Also might I add that many of us do not share in your willingness to stay sober on a night out!

I didn't say that I was willing to say sober - I said how it was the preferred choice over my other limited options. Anyhow, if having a good time requires you to become plastered then you have a problem!

Gran Hermano

Any concession/subsidy to rural people is blatant discrimination
against people in urban areas. Who subsidises my taxis home?
If I cant walk or get a taxi, I drive and I just don't drink.

It isn't that long ago that not everyone in Ireland owned a car,
what did people do then?

It is discrimination as it stands already as I know that I have a much higher
chance of getting stopped and breathalysed as I live in a city. Random
breath tests in non-urban areas are just that - truly random to the extent that if you live in the back of beyond you know the chances of being
stopped are slim to none.

We should adopt the model in New Zealand where the traffic corp
from the cities travel undercover to rural villages, park up on all
the roads in and out of town and breathalyze everyone. About time we had
some booze buses targeting the rural outposts.

Well done Fianna Fail and PDs, you've given me another reason to
ensure I never vote for you.

MadsL

"can ye not go to the pub and have a mineral" camp sound like puritan loonies.

Seriously. Is it THAT hard??? Scary.

I lived for two years in a rural community in Wiltshire, a 6 mile drive home from the small market town where I worked. I repeatedly got breathalysed - 3 consecutive nights one week. It isn't that hard, get real.

maidhc

The point is thus:

Person A:
55yrs old. Lives in the countryside. Likes 3/4/5 quiet pints on a saturday evening. No "gang" of friends to go with. Just shows up meets Tom/Dick/Harry in the local. Drives like a nun. Terrified of getting caught drink driving, even more terrified of getting caught going to 9.30 mass the next day. Feels persecuted.

Person B:
25yrs. Does not drink and drive, but when he drives he steers a Civic type R. Knows it all, brilliant driver. Wraps himself around a tree at 4am after dropping a few friends home.

Ultimately person A, even with 15pints and semi unconscious will be a safer driver than person B. I'm all for enforcement of rules, but it is important to see the wood from the trees at times as well.

The self righteous attitude in this thread worries me. How many people are driving on the roads believing themselves to be infallible? Arrogance has surely killed more people than beer.