[Article] 99% favour reduced drink driving level

Niall1234

I don't get this zero reading.

Surely you're body always contains trace amounts of alcohol from the food you eat and such.

I'm guessing that its not actually a zero reading and just a very very low reading ?

Stark

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/bac/drinkinfoabout0_00.html

Australia's zero alcohol policy for new drivers. Note the emphasis on checking the labels on everything you touch in case you end up with traces of alcohol in your system. I assume also that if you went out for a meal that you'd need to ask the waiting staff if there was alcohol in any of the sauces etc. It sounds like a complete PITA compared to having a BAC limit of 0.02g/l or 0.05g/l where it's just a simple case of "don't drink".

Niall1234

Stark wrote: »

http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/bac/drinkinfoabout0_00.html

Australia's zero alcohol policy for new drivers. Note the emphasis on checking the labels on everything you touch in case you end up with traces of alcohol in your system. I assume also that if you went out for a meal that you'd need to ask the waiting staff if there was alcohol in any of the sauces etc. It sounds like a complete PITA compared to having a BAC limit of 0.02g/l or 0.05g/l where it's just a simple case of "don't drink".

Completely over the top.

You'll end up with the situation where people won't be able to drive for fear of being over the limit after taking a spoon of cough syrup.

Of course, politicians (especially irish politicians) are idiots who might just bring this in.

PRND

Even eating some fruit which has gone bad would lead to a trace of alcohol in the system.

Fine, people perhaps should not have one pint and drive but what about the person who has half a bottle of wine the night before, sleeps 8 hours and then drives.

If they do lower this limit, they will have to educate people exactly how to stay within this law.

buckfast4me

Lennoxschips wrote: »

People shouldn't be driving after drinking a pint.

Why not? It's perfectly legal. More nanny-state bs from you. I know myself that having 1 pint with a meal does not affect MY driving. I was driving home from sunday dinner in a pub before christmas after having 1 pint of miller with the dinner, hit a random breath testing checkpoint and the reading showed ZERO alcohol detected in my breath. This was about 30 mins after finishing the pint. How dare you go around telling people they shouldn't do certain things that are perfectly within the boundaries of the law.

Also just a word of warning - this is an Irish website, when people mention laws they are presumed to be talking about Irish laws - NOT the netherlands, france, zimbabwe, outer mongolia, etc. Go preach on some dutch forums.

PRND

When I drink, I do it to get a beer head. A nice level of intoxication. Having one pint doesn't do that for me so I don't see the point in having one and then driving.

But I don't believe having one would impair my driving.

Chris_533976

seamus wrote: »

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.

Oh yeah they have the evidential breath machine. But still it would be crazy and unfair IMO to subject people to the arrest, hauling off to the nick, waiting for the machine to be available etc etc etc when they are innocent and have only taken prescription medicine that just happens to use alcohol as a solute

invincibleirish

ardmacha wrote: »

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.

I'll turn that back on you, people who have spent most of their adult lives being told its ok to have a few pints and drive are now in their 50s & 60s are told its not, they dont want to get caught, so they dont go out.

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

this is exactly the emotive argument i am talking about, both highlighted posts show the lack of understanding people have about rural areas

the pub, along with the GAA club & church is the focal point of peoples lives, particularly elderly, in rural areas. the science is there to support alcohol causes crashes, unfortunately the science isnt there to show the impact low BA level limits is having on small villages.

the fashionable cause that is demonising drink drivers is all well and good but take off the blinkers and look at the damage done to said rural areas.

Lennoxschips

buckfast4me wrote: »

Why not? It's perfectly legal. More nanny-state bs from you. I know myself that having 1 pint with a meal does not affect MY driving. I was driving home from sunday dinner in a pub before christmas after having 1 pint of miller with the dinner, hit a random breath testing checkpoint and the reading showed ZERO alcohol detected in my breath. This was about 30 mins after finishing the pint. How dare you go around telling people they shouldn't do certain things that are perfectly within the boundaries of the law.

Also just a word of warning - this is an Irish website, when people mention laws they are presumed to be talking about Irish laws - NOT the netherlands, france, zimbabwe, outer mongolia, etc. Go preach on some dutch forums.

Would you talk to somebody on the street like that?

dewsbury

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


The above is (from a previous post) is somewhat offensive.

Try telling your grandfather that he is too stingy to spend €20 on a taxi and that is why he cannot leave his home for a quiet pint in his local.

AckwelFoley

Victor wrote: »

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

Six times more likely than no drink, perhaps still very unlikely?

Im playing devils advocate.

seamus

dewsbury wrote: »

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


The above is (from a previous post) is somewhat offensive.

Try telling your grandfather that he is too stingy to spend €20 on a taxi and that is why he cannot leave his home for a quiet pint in his local.

I would imagine it's more to do with attitude and old Irish "be a man" bull**** rather than the need for a pint.

Many older people would rather be dead than be seen ordering a coffee or a club orange down the local with their mates.

There is nothing stopping people from leaving their homes. We all enjoy a pint. If you want to enjoy it, don't drive. It's really that easy.

seamus

snyper wrote: »

Six times more likely than no drink, perhaps still very unlikely?

Im playing devils advocate.

Get yourself a breathalyser and drink until you're at the legal limit.

You'll be quite shocked what state you can be in at the legal limit and the increase in risk will be obvious.

Even at half the legal limit, I would be very wary of getting into a car.

AckwelFoley

seamus wrote: »

Get yourself a breathalyser and drink until you're at the legal limit.

You'll be quite shocked what state you can be in at the legal limit and the increase in risk will be obvious.

Even at half the legal limit, I would be very wary of getting into a car.

Perhaps.. you prob are correct.

The bresathalyser and the test in the gardds station are 2 different animals.

They knock 20% off your total to start with when they use the one in the station.

vinylrules

snyper wrote: »

Perhaps.. you prob are correct.

The bresathalyser and the test in the gardds station are 2 different animals.

They knock 20% off your total to start with when they use the one in the station.

This is correct - although I belive it is 17% they knock off, not that there is much difference. The reason being that breath testing machinesn don't measure blood alcohol - they just estimate it, based on average metabolism. Since everyone isn't "average" they have to reduce the estimate - otherwise it would be laughed out of court.

On a seperate note, I see the Aussies have been having a bit of er, bother with their Random Breath Testing! (see link):

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22552418-3102,00.html

AckwelFoley

vinylrules wrote: »

This is correct - although I belive it is 17% they knock off, not that there is much difference. The reason being that breath testing machinesn don't measure blood alcohol - they just estimate it, based on average metabolism. Since everyone isn't "average" they have to reduce the estimate - otherwise it would be laughed out of court.

On a seperate note, I see the Aussies have been having a bit of er, bother with their Random Breath Testing! (see link):

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22552418-3102,00.html

No, its 20%.. said cop that held it to my face and said blow on that..

within 2 posts, there will be a refrence to a penis... get ur mind outta the gutter.

vinylrules

snyper wrote: »

No, its 20%.. said cop that held it to my face and said blow on that..

within 2 posts, there will be a refrence to a penis... get ur mind outta the gutter
Oh I see...you're talking about the roadside test - maybe that one is 20% allright. I meant the one back at the station on the super-duper, hi-tech intoxiliser machine (the one they use for evidence in court) Just checked again and it is defintitely a 17.5% reduction for that one. See link below The details about the reduction are on page 6 under the heading Uncertainty of Measurment.

http://www.ucd.ie/legalmed/ar1999.pdf

Victor

Niall1234 wrote: »

You'll end up with the situation where people won't be able to drive for fear of being over the limit after taking a spoon of cough syrup.

Chris_533976 wrote: »

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

Read the label "May cause drowsiness ... do not drive or use machinery....." :rolleyes:

Niall1234 wrote: »

I don't get this zero reading. Surely you're body always contains trace amounts of alcohol from the food you eat and such. I'm guessing that its not actually a zero reading and just a very very low reading ?

In case like that, I suspect you are also at the threshold of detectability for the testing equipment used. You would get a 'trace' or similar result.

PRND wrote: »

If they do lower this limit, they will have to educate people exactly how to stay within this law.

Allow time for any food to digest and then allow one hour per unit.

invincibleirish wrote: »

the pub, along with the GAA club & church is the focal point of peoples lives, particularly elderly, in rural areas. the science is there to support alcohol causes crashes, unfortunately the science isnt there to show the impact low BA level limits is having on small villages.

the fashionable cause that is demonising drink drivers is all well and good but take off the blinkers and look at the damage done to said rural areas.

The villain of this piece isn't alcohol or road safety, but the private car. More people are living in rural areas at any time since the 1950s. The problem is they no longer live in villages or clacháns but in ribbon development in the middle of nowhere.

Page 13 of document (page 5 of PDF) http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/PDR%202006%20Commentary.pdf

ballooba

This thread is nonsense. I couldn't be bothered going back and responding to the ridiculous comments.

Nobody should drive after even one drink. The 0.80 limit was never intended to allow for this. It was to provide a margin for error. Over the years it has been shown that this margin for error is too big.

If you take enough benylin to be over the limit then you shouldn't drive. Read the label.

Mouthwash will not put you over the limit unless you have been drinking it. A breath test is followed by a blood test for enfocement.

If you are drunk ebough to be over the limit the morning after then you shouldn't be driving. It's not a sleep driving limit it's a drink driving limit. If your over the limit then your over the limit.

Propellerhead

The other perspective is that it's all right for the guards to hammer on a few harmless aul fellas rather than tackle real criminals.

No surer route to discrediting community policing or for the self righteous to jump up and down on individual's liberties you couldn't get.

Búideál Óraiste for the man in the corner. :rolleyes:

The other aspect is Victor's comment about rural planning. Villages or Clachans would be lovely, however the nature of rural landownership is that it is dispersed. Perhaps An Taisce will subsidise rural dwellers the cost differential between the value of land owned in areas away from the Clachan and the driven up cost of the designated area.

That's one vital reason why the Irish countryside is not a theme park for urban dwellers. If you want to preserve a bit of the countryside buy your own with your own money.

Victor

2007

Road Traffic Deaths 338
Homocides: 79

It is real crime.

invincibleirish

2007

Road Traffic Deaths 338
Homocides: 79

It is real crime.

C&T solution: Public Transport for all!, i guess we can argue a side effect of increased reliance on the car not just for long commutes to work but also long commutes to the pub

Stark

Propellerhead wrote: »

The other aspect is Victor's comment about rural planning. Villages or Clachans would be lovely, however the nature of rural landownership is that it is dispersed. Perhaps An Taisce will subsidise rural dwellers the cost differential between the value of land owned in areas away from the Clachan and the driven up cost of the designated area.

That's one vital reason why the Irish countryside is not a theme park for urban dwellers. If you want to preserve a bit of the countryside buy your own with your own money.

Massive :rolleyes:

I'm sorry but all I'm hearing here is "You want us to obey the law? You're going to have to pay us off".

buckfast4me

ballooba wrote: »

Nobody should drive after even one drink. The 0.80 limit was never intended to allow for this. It was to provide a margin for error

Source? Never heard such tripe in all my life - just because you interpret a law one way, does not mean that is how the law should be interpreted by everyone. I would interpret it as that is the the most alcohol you can consume while still safely operating a mechanically propelled vehicle.

Stark

buckfast4me wrote:

I would interpret it as that is the the most alcohol you can consume while still safely operating a mechanically propelled vehicle.

That's not true. It's the most you can legally drink, not an indicator of what's safe or not.

buckfast4me

Stark wrote: »

That's not true. It's the most you can legally drink, not an indicator of what's safe or not.

Legally drink - why 0.80 though, why not 1.6 or 3.2? Because those limits would make it unsafe to drive. The legal limit is obviously based heavily on a safety factor - what else would it be based on? They didn't just pull the figure out of the air.

buckfast4me

Stark wrote: »

That's not true. It's the most you can legally drink, not an indicator of what's safe or not.

Section 49 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 as inserted by Section 10 of the Road Traffic Act 1994 created four separate drink driving offences in Ireland. These offences are as follows:

• An offence of driving or attempting to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while under the influence of an intoxicant to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle. (Section 49(1));

So now how can you say my statement was not true? At least my interpretation makes sense, yours is just plain nonsense.

Stark

It says driving over the limit is unsafe. It doesn't say anything about driving up to the limit. It defines what the law considers to be acceptable risk, it doesn't say that you're free from risk.

buckfast4me

Stark wrote: »

It says driving over the limit is unsafe.

From which can be derived that driving under the limit is considered safe (otherwise they would have lowered the limit by now). There's no "kinda safe" in the legal system - everything is black and white.

Stark

buckfast4me wrote:

From which can be derived that driving under the limit is safe

All numbers greater than 8 are positive numbers. Does that mean 7 is a negative number? :rolleyes:

buckfast4me wrote:

There's no "kinda safe" in the legal system - everything is black and white.

Plenty of things are unsafe but legal. Do you think it's safe to smoke because it's legal? Suicide is also legal these days, that must mean they consider it safe these days.