[Article] 99% favour reduced drink driving level

Victor

Even if this is way off the mark, it demonstrates that some politicians are way off the mark.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0325/driving.html

99% favour reduced drink driving level
Tuesday, 25 March 2008 16:39

99% of people recently surveyed are in favour of a reduction in the current drink driving level.

The nationwide survey, carried out road safety group PARC, found that most people believe the current drink driving limit of 80mg for every 100ml of blood should be reduced.

Almost two-thirds (59%) of those questioned were in favour of a zero blood alcohol level.
Advertisement

Susan Gray, Chairperson of PARC, says the results show a growing attitude among people that the current drink driving limits are too high, with only 1% of people in support of them as they are.

The survey was conducted in Locations Donegal, Leitrim, Sligo, Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, and Cork among 3,262 people.

It was carried out by PARC supported by Alcohol Action Ireland.

1huge1

obviously 99% is a bit much but ya I would expect a very high number would be in favour of having it reduced, as for myself ya reduced but not by much obviously.

dewsbury

I read this article too.

However, I simply do not believe it !

APM

have to say I totally disagree with the findings of this survey. Its going to be a nightmare for people who are already worried about the morning after having a couple of pints.

Hope somebody is big enough in the government to keep the limit where it is tbh. It isn't the drivers who are at .7 or .6 who are causing all the major deaths on the road, nor is it the guy at .2 the next morning, surely its the person who's 2/3/4 times over the current legal limit??

ant

vinylrules

Is it just me or do I detect a growing number of people beginning to question this constant campaign to reduce drink-drive limits? Sure, the Vintners are against it for obvious reasons but recently I've heard people who would normally be dead against drink-driving - at any level - saying that the current limits are fine and that enforcing them strictly would be a better bet. I'm talking about professional, well educated people here - perhaps they fear, as I do that reducing the levels would encourage more people to take court actions. As far as I know the breath testing devices are not exactly accurate at low levels and a succesful challenge could throw the whole system into chaos. Just my tuppence worth.
As for that "survey" it certainly wasn't conducted in pub car-parks at closing time...more likely after evening devotions or outside PTAA meetings!

Propellerhead

More than a bit overstated I think. The local constabulary in my father's bit of rural Ireland made themselves even more unpopular when they decided to breathalyse a few aul codgers going to mass on a Sunday morning.

Why do the law abiding majority have to live in fear of having a jar because of a few easily identifiable idiots? :mad:

astrofool

Is there figures available on accidents involving people who are under the limit (but not 0).

Propellerhead

Oh yes, perhaps those quoted in the OP will provide a free lift to their neighbours who can't go for a pint when their law gets enforced. On second thoughts, probably they won't.

vinylrules

astrofool wrote: »

Is there figures available on accidents involving people who are under the limit (but not 0).

The RSA web-site has these figures but they're based on 2003 fatalites which are well out of date (and pre-Random Breath Testing). As far as I remember they are quite low - in single figures.
Also you have to remember that in this country, the cause of an accident is usually not assigned where alcohol is involved - so in a case where a reckless sober driver overtakes on a bad bend and smashes into a driver with one drink on board - if both drivers are killed, this is written up as two alcohol-related road fatalaties.

lostexpectation

were these ol codgers drunk?

buckfast4me

vinylrules wrote: »

Is it just me or do I detect a growing number of people beginning to question this constant campaign to reduce drink-drive limits?

No you are absolutely correct. I remember reading a few weeks ago in the independent that a very highly-regarded pathologist in northern ireland came out and said the bodies he deals with (where driver death was due to drink-driving) had an average blood alcohol of 6 times the limit or something similar. And he said the exact same thing being said here - greater enforcement of CURRENT BA limits are needed, not reduced BA limits.

It will look great for the gardai because they will catch hundreds more people, driving home from sunday dinner after 1 pint, people driving to work the next day after a night out etc and their drink-driving arrests statistics will rocket making the gardai look just super. When in reality it will do feck-all to reduce fatalities. Wait and see.

patrickc

im for 0% tolerance myself if it reduces road deaths

BendiBus

I never believe a survey carried out by an interested party.

I'm sure the vintners could commission a survey to find the exact opposite to the one above.

Bluetonic

patrickc wrote: »

im for 0% tolerance myself if it reduces road deaths

There already is 0% tolerance to drink driving at the current limits when caught obviously.

Your not suggestion 0mgs limits are you? It's impractical if so.

invincibleirish

Drink driving and BA limits as an issue which is nearly impossible to discuss due to its highly emotive nature,just look at the Irish Times recently where in the opinion page head to head feature, who was in favour of reducing BA limits? a women who lost her husband in a drink driving accident and who now leads one of those *victim* groups. who was against reducind the limits? why the head of the VFI, now who do you think out of those two will elicit a more sympathetic response?

My opinion for what its worth, I originally come from a rural area, 2 out of the 3 pubs in the local village have closed in the past 5 years, the third one is struggling, just before xmas there was another Garda checkpoint blitz on the highways & byways of the area and something like 10 people were caught.

Very good, except where what was a once lively village in evening time is now dead after 8pm, the people bagged were generally 50 plus living in the countryside, they now have no option to but to stay at home* and not go out to the local, what a shame.

* of course they can get a taxi, as the closest taxi office is in a town 10km away an average fare will be in and around the 20 euro mark, thats reasonable maybe for a special occasion, but for 2 pints after work on a weekday evening? what a joke.

I.S.T.

buckfast4me wrote: »

No you are absolutely correct. I remember reading a few weeks ago in the independent that a very highly-regarded pathologist in northern ireland came out and said the bodies he deals with (where driver death was due to drink-driving) had an average blood alcohol of 6 times the limit or something similar. And he said the exact same thing being said here - greater enforcement of CURRENT BA limits are needed, not reduced BA limits.

It will look great for the gardai because they will catch hundreds more people, driving home from sunday dinner after 1 pint, people driving to work the next day after a night out etc and their drink-driving arrests statistics will rocket making the gardai look just super. When in reality it will do feck-all to reduce fatalities. Wait and see.

It would be interesting to see stats on the amount of alcohol in the bodies of drivers involved in fatal collisions.

On one hand I can't see a reason to reduce the limit any further unless there are statistics that point to a large amount of people causing accidents who are under the current legal blood-alcohol level. But on the other hand I wonder if some of the people who are way above the limit and were involved in an accident originally intended to have just one or two pints and got carried away. If there was zero tolerance perhaps they would not have had that first drink that lead to the other 5.

Niall1234

I think this just proves how skewed surveys and statistics can be.

The gov makes statistics for its own devices as do all organisations from what I can tell.

AckwelFoley

Either way, it will have ZERO effect on road deaths, simply because, those that hoose to drink and drive and kill people in the process will care less.

People only a small % over the current limit are generally not those involved in accidents and deaths, its the guys that are way over the limit.

vinylrules

Just listening to the RTE news where there was a big headline story about "100 people a day" being arrested for suspected drink driving between Paddy's Day and Easter.
Funny that you never hear about the numbers actually charged or convicted. Given that the arrest can based on the fact that you have any amount of alcohol in you and the time of the night etc. I wonder how many of those arrested "on suspicion" are subsequently found to be under the limit and therefore law abiding citizens. (Martin Ferris' arrest was one case in point) Methinks there is a bit of a scare campaign going on.

patrickc

Bluetonic wrote: »

There already is 0% tolerance to drink driving at the current limits when caught obviously.

Your not suggestion 0mgs limits are you? It's impractical if so.

why is it impractiable? theres no need for anyone to drink and drive at all

ardmacha

Very good, except where what was a once lively village in evening time is now dead after 8pm, the people bagged were generally 50 plus living in the countryside, they now have no option to but to stay at home* and not go out to the local, what a shame.

What is stopping them going out? The only prohibition is on going out and drinking. Only in Ireland do you have this notion that you have to drink otherwise life isn't worth living. They can go out and not drink. They can even go out and drink two nights out of three, if one abstains and he drives the other two home every third night.

There is a major fallacy here, that a certain amount of drink has a major effect on your sociability while having no effect on your ability to drive.

That said a zero % level is impracticable as someone who hasn't had a drink might have a low level from eating dessert or something.

Victor

snyper wrote: »

People only a small % over the current limit are generally not those involved in accidents and deaths, its the guys that are way over the limit.

Anyone can be involved in a collision. The more alcohol the more likely you are to have an accident, whether driving or not.

At the legal limit you are 6 times more likely to have a fatal accident. See last page here: http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/RSA_RCF_2006_v7.pdf?PHPSESSID=6f725d72d3c8cb97610c55ee441f9f58

Bluetonic

patrickc wrote: »

why is it impractiable? theres no need for anyone to drink and drive at all

Many non prescription medicines for example contain low levels of alcohol which would give a positive reading.

It's impracticable.

vinylrules

Quote: "The more alcohol the more likely you are to have an accident, whether driving or not.
At the legal limit you are 6 times more likely to have a fatal accident."

This is undoubtadley true but interestingly, it's not all down to the effects of the alcohol but due to the increased "exposure to risk". People who drink are also more likely to be on the roads late at night when other factors such as fatigue, poor lighting etc. come into play. Random Breath Testing works not just by taking drinkers off the road but by taking cars off the road. The last thing the authorities want is for the people who drink and drive to give up the drink but to still be the roads at night - high on the effects of Coca Cola - which is why the "designated driver" thing is pushed so much. Ironically, if rural pubs are closing down at the rate mentioned in the post above, even the designated drivers will become obsolete. The move towards drinking at home could be seen as a curfew by any other name.

Victor

I take your point.

However, the most dangerous time of the day is the evening rush hour. Taking all impaired drivers off the road through a, errr... travel ban just isn't workable. Taking impaired drivers off the road has to be through education and enforcement.

Stark

invincibleirish wrote: »

* of course they can get a taxi, as the closest taxi office is in a town 10km away an average fare will be in and around the 20 euro mark, thats reasonable maybe for a special occasion, but for 2 pints after work on a weekday evening? what a joke.

The joke is insisting on putting other people's lives at risk because you're too tight to spend €20.

Lennoxschips

For the first five years you have a license in the Netherlands the limit is 0.2. In Ireland the limit is 0.8.

If I was tested with 0.8 in the Netherlands they would take my license off me on the spot. In Ireland I would be waived on through.

It will look great for the gardai because they will catch hundreds more people, driving home from sunday dinner after 1 pint

People shouldn't be driving after drinking a pint.

vinylrules

Victor wrote: »

I take your point.

However, the most dangerous time of the day is the evening rush hour. Taking all impaired drivers off the road through a, errr... travel ban just isn't workable. Taking impaired drivers off the road has to be through education and enforcement.

True, but what about drivers who are "impaired" through fatigue which accounts for something like 20% of fatalaties? There are no laws in relation to this matter, and there are few campaigns urging people to make sure they have a good night's sleep before driving. Just think what the radio ads would be like...
"stayed up to watch the late night movie/Australian rules football/the eclipse? You may not be fit to drive until 2pm...Sleeping and driving? - Could you live with the shame?"

Instead we get some nice friendly advice from the RSA - "pull over, take a 15 minute nap and have two cups of coffee!" Once drink is involved it's hysteria time ..(I heard Pat Kenny saying he knew someone who'd had one drink, was well under the limit but still got a stiff lecture from a Guard - instead of a "thank you for your time sir, you're under the limit and can proceed.") It's hard not to feel this whole issue is becoming as much about drink as it is about road safety. Certainly this constant discussion about bringing in infintesimal limits is surely scraping the bottom of the (beer) barrel...

seamus

BendiBus wrote: »

I never believe a survey carried out by an interested party.

Not least because of the ambiguity of the wording.

I can guarantee you the question was, "If the Government lowered the legal limit, would you support it?". So most people said "Yes". If they asked, "Do you think the Government needs to lower the drink-driving limit?", you'd probably get very different results.

However, the publishers of this survey are trying to paint it as though they asked the second question and everyone said, "Yes".

Misinformation at its best. This is how you use facts to prove anything.

Chris_533976

Bluetonic wrote: »

Many non prescription medicines for example contain low levels of alcohol which would give a positive reading.

It's impracticable.

Replace Many with Most

Benylin is one example. An absolute zero-alcohol limit would mean you couldnt take cough medicine before going out.

Also Mouthwash is mostly alcohol and although you dont swallow it you inevitably breath a small amount in, which would technically fail you on a zero-reading policy.

I'm for reducing it as I believe drink runs this country far too much, but I'm more for road enforcement than I am for the guards getting un-warranted praise this way.

seamus

Chris_533976 wrote: »

Also Mouthwash is mostly alcohol and although you dont swallow it you inevitably breath a small amount in, which would technically fail you on a zero-reading policy.

All roadside tests are backed up with tests in the station which comprise of a proper breath sample and/or a urine sample and/or a blood sample.
There is usually a wait of up to an hour before the second test is carried out in the station.

So no-one would ever be convicted on the strength of a mouthwash positive. It may however cause some pissed off people and frayed nerves.