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.