Drinking & Driving Laws To Get Tougher!

Spook_ie

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhidojsnojau/

Taxi drivers and learners may face stiff drink drive limits

Learner drivers and taxi drivers could be hit with stricter drink-driving limits in new legislation, the Dáil heard today.

Pressure is on the Government to drop the the current general level for all motorists from 80mg per 100ml of blood to 50mg.

However the limits for learner drivers, taxi drivers and truckers could fall to 20mg.

The Road Traffic and Transport Bill, which contains the provisions, is expected be published in early 2009.

The draft Bill has already been passed by the Cabinet.

“The Road Safety Authority advice to us was that the limit should be brought down to 50 for all drivers, to 20 for learner drivers or professional drivers,” junior transport minister Noel Ahern told the Dáil.

“Those items are being considered and we await the final outcome.

“There will be further discussion on the detail.”

The proposed new limits will require the recalibration or replacement of roadside breathalysers and analysis machines in garda stations by the Medical Bureau of Road Safety

Opposition transport spokesman Fergus O’Dowd cited research that claimed drivers are up to ten times more likely to die with blood alcohol levels between 50-79mg than compared to zero levels.

The Co Louth TD also added that recent EU-wide surveys showed truck drivers had excessive levels of alcohol.

He called for measures to be considered such as an 'alcohol lock' which immobilises a car if sensors detect a smell of drink from the motorist.

Mr Ahern said that experts agree that there is no safe driving limit with alcohol.

My opinion, just not tough enough, why aim it at L Drivers, Taxis and Truckers, anyone who has been drinking should be facing the same levels regardless of what they drive!

IMO Wanna Drink, Then Don't Drive....

Carawaystick

Spook,
have you figures for how many less accidents a reduction of the alcohol limits would cause?
Would the restrictions on peoples freedoms be proportionate to the gain?
What side affects would a very low limit cause - rural isolation the usual one trotted out.


Considering the RSA claim that driving while tired is as dangerous as drink driving, shouldn't that be a priority - how many people have been prosecuted for driving while tired?

see page two of
http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/912_Drivers_Hours.pdf

Tipsy Mac

The current limits are fine, if you look at the drink driving related deaths it's people are 4 or 5 times the limit causing the carnage. I think there should be a 3 times the limit and you don't drive again EVER instead.

Guy:Incognito

Carawaystick wrote: »

Considering the RSA claim that driving while tired is as dangerous as drink driving, shouldn't that be a priority - how many people have been prosecuted for driving while tired?

How do you measure tiredness on a breadtheliser?

corktina

[QUOTE=My opinion, just not tough enough, why aim it at L Drivers, Taxis and Truckers, anyone who has been drinking should be facing the same levels regardless of what they drive!

IMO Wanna Drink, Then Don't Drive....[/QUOTE]

ya thats not sensible.....L drivers should be under supervision therefore it would make more sense to hammer the Supervisor if the Learner were drunk ...truckers as a whole I would think are LESS of a hazzard than car drivers and Taxi drivers..well maybe but ALL PSV drivers should be included shouldnt they?

ZERO tolerance is the only way IMHO

Davidth88

There are so many things that could be done before this happens.

The drink drive laws are fine as they are in my opinion they need to


a) Police the roads more effectivly , and I don't mean the stupid roadblocks checking tax/insurance I mean I should see 1-2 patrol cars if I drive from one end of the country to the other , presently I see none.

b) Bring in ANPR, that would negate the need for the roadblocks ( to some extent ) .

c) Check people's licence when they are stopped ( or ping up on the ANPR ) and if they don't have one STOP THEM DRIVING . It's strange that since the law was changed to stop L drivers driving alone they all seem to have disappeared ( no they have not all passed their tests )

d) Pull people over for doing stupid things, how many times have you seen people stopped on the motorways here ( I see one everyday ) . They can't all be emergencies . The hard shoulder is just about the most dangerous place a normal person could encounter.

e) Engineer issues out of roads, if there is a fatal/serious crash analyise what happened and see how the road can be changed to fix this , and by that I don't mean put up the stupid ' accident black spot ' signs which mean nothing .

Rant over .

Spook_ie

corktina wrote: »

ya thats not sensible.....L drivers should be under supervision therefore it would make more sense to hammer the Supervisor if the Learner were drunk ...truckers as a whole I would think are LESS of a hazzard than car drivers and Taxi drivers..well maybe but ALL PSV drivers should be included shouldnt they?

ZERO tolerance is the only way IMHO

Have to agree with the zero tolerence/zero limit it's the only way to rid things of grey areas. As pointed out to me on a thread on irishtaxidrivers.com what about if someone drives a taxi to the shops/school in the morning over the taxi drivers limit but under the general driving limit, they're not working but are they breaking the law? If you're not going for zero level then the level should be the same for all to avoid such confusion.

AFAIK With regard to the L driver, both of them would have to be under the limit, but again which limit would/should apply to the supervisory driver?

As for applying to all PSV drivers, I myself would take that as read, but maybe yet another legislation loophole that you can drive a BUS through!

Spook_ie

Carawaystick wrote: »

Spook,
have you figures for how many less accidents a reduction of the alcohol limits would cause?
Would the restrictions on peoples freedoms be proportionate to the gain?
What side affects would a very low limit cause - rural isolation the usual one trotted out.


Considering the RSA claim that driving while tired is as dangerous as drink driving, shouldn't that be a priority - how many people have been prosecuted for driving while tired?

see page two of
http://www.rsa.ie/publication/publication/upload/912_Drivers_Hours.pdf

Nope, no figures but standard opinion is that in the majority of people any alchohol affects them and their abilities to a greater or lesser degree. Therefore zero is my prefered option.
Rural Isolation, that old turkey, maybe it's time we invested in some Alchohol Rehabilitation Units for the Rural Isolationists.

The tiredness issue though, thats a different ballgame alltogether and is one of the standard reasons we taxi drivers trot out against allowing part time taxi drivers who have worked 35-45 hours in a job during the week being allowed to drive a taxi for 2 nights of the weekend. Just cannot see or be convinced how this should be allowed to happen. I work more or less permanent nights driving the taxi and I know that if for some reason I've been awake during the day I'm absolutely fooked for doing a full night shift that night! and will often cut short a shift after 4 or 5 hours just because I feel so tired...

Davidth88

Hi

I was all in favour of zero for drink limit, until you think of it a bit.

Zero means zero, think you are out in the evening, have a couple ( and I mean a couple ) of pints and walk home.

The next morning you go to work/the shops in the car , get pulled and done for DD.

I would put a million euro bet on ( if I had it ) that if such legislation came in we would see loads of ' tax/insurance checks' first thing on a Monday morning.

If you take it to the zero degree, you are at dinner and you have bailey's cheesecake/trifle , ( and nothing else ) and get pulled on the way home ...........

I NEVER EVER drink and drive ( as in drink and then drive home ) , but to be honest I may well go out during the evening and have a couple of pints and drive to work in the morning , should I be taken off the road ?

In Sweden the taxis have units that the driver has to take a breath test before the car will start , how about that for PSVs ?

faceman

Im probably going to make my point completely arseways but hopefully you get my drift.

At this point in time, I'm against a zero tolerance approach to alcohol intake and driving. Heres why:

In all my years in driving, Ive never been breathalysed once, yet i do a higher than average driving per year and i do regularly drive at night, early morning and the weekends when spot checks are more likely. During my years of driving, the alcohol limit has come down a number of times, becoming more stricter. But it has made no difference to me, and I assume many many other drivers because I have never been breathalysed. So in the 10 years Im driving, surely statistically I should have been breathalysed by now?

Second point is in relation to guidelines. There are no official guidelines on "next day issues" which regularly hit the courts. Individuals dont know how to gauge when they are safe to drive the following day after a night of drinking.

in my view, great guidelines should be given to the public on when it is safe to get behind the wheel after a night out. Many of us get behind the wheel the following afternoon assuming than our 8 hours sleep and breakfast roll will make us right as rain.

And the second point is there needs to be more checkpoints. A zero tolerance strategy doesnt save as many lives as having more checkpoints would.

Spook_ie

Great business chance for someone to lobby for zero level and then flog calibrated breathalyzers to you for €100-€200 a pop. Now where's my suppliers list?

rameire

its just my thoughts but they should up the penalty points, and fine people thousands for drink driving.
not just a slap on the wrist that they get now.

L1011

€5,000 is a slap on the wrist?

faceman

^ dont forget the 2 year driving ban too!

rameire

MYOB wrote: »

€5,000 is a slap on the wrist?

how many people actually get that charge,
but should really have checked the figures before posting, am holding my hands up.

edit::: ok just checked the laws, should make them more severe.
ill go and hibernate now.

anotherlostie

A lot of cough medicines also contain small amounts of alcohol, and this would again put people over a zero limit. 10mL of Benylin for a chesty cough and I'm off the road for 2 years? No thanks.

Spook_ie

anotherlostie wrote: »

A lot of cough medicines also contain small amounts of alcohol, and this would again put people over a zero limit. 10mL of Benylin for a chesty cough and I'm off the road for 2 years? No thanks.

My opinion ( again ) Cop Out Excuse, they could as easily mark them the same as food items for nut allergies..

the boss of me

anotherlostie wrote: »

A lot of cough medicines also contain small amounts of alcohol, and this would again put people over a zero limit. 10mL of Benylin for a chesty cough and I'm off the road for 2 years? No thanks.

People need to be careful about all drugs not just alcohol. Have a look at your bottle of Benylin and somewhere in there you should see this warning "may cause drowsiness , do not operate heavy machinery". A car constitues heavy machinery in my book. One dose of cough medicine could be just as dangerous as a couple of pints.

anotherlostie

That warning is on Benylin for Dry Coughs, not for Chesty Coughs, which is why I chose the chesty cough example.

There are a lot of holier than thou attitudes on show here, IMHO. If I was dying with a cold, I'd prefer to take a cough remedy that made me feel a hell of a lot better before embarking on a journey I had to make.

the boss of me

anotherlostie wrote: »

That warning is on Benylin for Dry Coughs, not for Chesty Coughs, which is why I chose the chesty cough example.

There are a lot of holier than thou attitudes on show here, IMHO. If I was dying with a cold, I'd prefer to take a cough remedy that made me feel a hell of a lot better before embarking on a journey I had to make.

Apologies if I came across as holier than thou.:rolleyes:
I've just had a look in my medicine cabinet and found a bottle of "Benylin 4flu". On the label is the following warning quote "may cause drowsiness, if affected do not drive or operate machinery".
Now correct me if I'm wrong but taking something like that and then driving is totally irresponsible. All I was trying to point out was that there is a lot more to worry about in cough medicine than trace amounts of alcohol.

corktina

in a perfect world (with zero tolerance) Id like to think we could rely on an experianced Gard using his common sense as to whether someone has drunk a bottle of whiskey or a spoonfull of Benylin....fraught with difficulties of course in our not-so-perfect world (such as in the case of an accident) I know. I would prefer that persons taking cough medicine et all didnt drive as this would stop the drunks using it as a loophole to escape the weight of the law

Capt'n Midnight

corktina wrote: »

.truckers as a whole I would think are LESS of a hazzard than car drivers and Taxi drivers..well maybe but ALL PSV drivers should be included shouldnt they?

ZERO tolerance is the only way IMHO

Truckers , 10 fold increase in bridge strikes in recent years, and most cyclists killed in Dublin are killed by truckers / Buses

real problem is that a truck can do a lot more damage than a car when it hits something

Spook_ie

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Truckers , 10 fold increase in bridge strikes in recent years, and most cyclists killed in Dublin are killed by truckers / Buses

real problem is that a truck can do a lot more damage than a car when it hits something

Just to throw this off on a tangent, isn't it about time cyclists were tested for alcohol and also that they are insured? No license suspension ( obviously seeing as they don't have one ) but fined for drunken cycling...and insured for the times they hit pedestrians when zipping through a red light....

mayordenis

the boss of me wrote: »

One dose of cough medicine could be just as dangerous as a couple of pints.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on,
not having a go and of course tell me if you have something to back this up, but sounds very flimsy to me.

seanybiker

cool i can drink more than learners. Thats kinda stupid really.

corktina

mayordenis wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're basing this on,
not having a go and of course tell me if you have something to back this up, but sounds very flimsy to me.

im not goingto the pub this weekend...couple of spoonfuls of Benylin and I'll be well away.....:D

No thats a red herring put about by people who want to keep drink driving...the amount of alcohol in a cough remedy is VERY small and unlikely to be a problem unless mixed with something else.(only logical isnt it...

Just a note for those advocating "zero tolerance", the condition reported below is not that rare.

http://www.georgecreal.com/general/what-if-the-human-body-could-produce-alcohol.html

What if the human body could produce alcohol? Sunday, 23 July 2006 Endogenous or Auto Brewery Syndrome as a result of intestinal disorders
Candidiasis is a yeast infection which plagues the intestine when good bacteria are killed as a result of long term use of antibotics. Some candidiasis sufferers will feel, and appear to be, intoxicated. An unsual symptom of certain people with severe candidiasis is the presence of alcohol in the blood stream even when none has been consumed. First discovered in Japan, and called "drunk disease," this condition creates strains of candida albicans which turn acetaldehyde (which is the chemical created by sugar and yeast fermentation) into ethanol. This is a process well understood by distillers of homemade brew. These candidiasis patients whose yeast turns sugar into alcohol are chronically drunk. They have developed what is only half-jokingly called "auto-brewery syndrome".
A medical test has been developed in which, after an overnight fast, the individual is given 100 grams of pure sugar. Blood samples taken both before the sugar loading, and an hour after, are mesured for alcohol. An increase of alcohol indicates yeast "auto-brewery" intoxication. Another connection between alcohol and candidiasis has been found in a study of 213 alcoholics at a recovery center in Minneapolis. Test and questionaire results indicated that candidiasis is a common complication of alcoholism due to the combination of high sugar content in alcohol and the inability of alcoholics to assimilate nutrients. Additionally, female alcoholics with candidiasis were significantly sicker than non alcoholic women with candidiasis.
Many of the symptoms exhibited in alcoholism such as insomnia, depression, loss of libido, headaches, sinusitis/post-nasal drip, digestion and intestinal complaints, overlap with those in candida overgrowth. Obviously, drinking alcohol increases levels of sugar in the system. But other habits of alcoholics are also at fault. Many alcoholics tend to be smokers and so are at risk for respiratory infections which are treated with ... antibiotics !

This is exactly why alchol breath tests and other medical tests should be performed by Doctors and not police officers who take a 40 hour class and are deemed experts. What do you think.

Capt'n Midnight

how about curfews for learner / young drivers like in Canada, since so many of the deaths are alcohol related / nights / weekends

corktina

yep and how about having a crackdown on the MANY L drivers I still see driving unaccompanied....they surely are uninsured as they are not "driving within the terns of their license"...(a bit off topic I know sorry)

Giblet

corktina wrote: »

im not goingto the pub this weekend...couple of spoonfuls of Benylin and I'll be well away.....:D

No thats a red herring put about by people who want to keep drink driving...the amount of alcohol in a cough remedy is VERY small and unlikely to be a problem unless mixed with something else.(only logical isnt it...

Are you serious? "keep drunk driving"?

Don't be so silly. I've often woke up the next day after drinking and late into the evening, blown .01 on the 'lyzer. You can't have zero tolerance, it's a ridiculous over zealous policing of something which many people are guilty of. Come down from your cross.

corktina

probably not wise to insult people until you read the post proerley.....people who want to continue DRINK driving it says.

Del2005

corktina wrote: »

in a perfect world (with zero tolerance) Id like to think we could rely on an experianced Gard using his common sense as to whether someone has drunk a bottle of whiskey or a spoonfull of Benylin....fraught with difficulties of course in our not-so-perfect world (such as in the case of an accident) I know. I would prefer that persons taking cough medicine et all didnt drive as this would stop the drunks using it as a loophole to escape the weight of the law

But if they have zero tolerance then why should the Garda use common sense? Both people are breaking the same law, driving with alcohol in their system so the the Garda would get 2 DUI convictions. That's why we have a limit. So that you can have alcohol in your system and not get a DUI. As opposed to Garda seeing you fail a road side breath test and letting you go!!

And how would a zero alcohol limit stop drunks using what loophole to escape the weight of the law? If someone blows over the current limit, or what ever it's set to in future, they should get done. If they aren't getting done then having a lower limit won't affect that as they have already broken the law and got away with it, so I'm sure they could get away with if we have a a zero limit in a similar fashion.

Duckjob

Enforcement. If we had nobody on the roads over .80mg of alcohol, we would be sorted.

Enforce the laws we have instead of ignoring what we have and bringing in ever more draconian laws to compensate. We, as a nation are rubbish at this.

corktina

Del2005 wrote: »

But if they have zero tolerance then why should the Garda use common sense? Both people are breaking the same law, driving with alcohol in their system so the the Garda would get 2 DUI convictions. That's why we have a limit. So that you can have alcohol in your system and not get a DUI. As opposed to Garda seeing you fail a road side breath test and letting you go!!

And how would a zero alcohol limit stop drunks using what loophole to escape the weight of the law? If someone blows over the current limit, or what ever it's set to in future, they should get done. If they aren't getting done then having a lower limit won't affect that as they have already broken the law and got away with it, so I'm sure they could get away with if we have a a zero limit in a similar fashion.

well i did say " in a perfect world" didnt I...didnt proposee it was the solution to the question...:D

Del2005

corktina wrote: »

well i did say " in a perfect world" didnt I...didnt proposee it was the solution to the question...:D

If it was a "perfect world" we wouldn't need all these laws;)

SeanW

Spook_ie wrote: »

My opinion ( again ) Cop Out Excuse, they could as easily mark them the same as food items for nut allergies..

While I agree of course that if you drink you should not drive, allowing no margin at all, i.e. a zero limit, doesn't make much sense to me.

After all, any number of things could put someone over a small or zero limit - cough medicines, a recent use of mouthwash (which would affect a breathalyser test) certain deserts that use small amounts of alchol as part of the ingredient list.

Of course people should not drink and drive and those who do should be punished - but there's no point in going into silly territory.

BrianD

SeanW wrote: »

After all, any number of things could put someone over a small or zero limit - cough medicines, a recent use of mouthwash (which would affect a breathalyser test) certain deserts that use small amounts of alchol as part of the ingredient list.

The mouthwash debate is more of an urban myth ... you would have to have used mouthwash minutes before you were breathalysed. The roadside breath test is only that - you need to be tested formally for a conviction to be made. Thus it is very improbable that mouthwash use would even register in a roadside test.

However, there is one thing that I have read and notice is not done here. In nearly every country if you face a random roadside breath test they are supposed to ask if you have eaten or had a drink or even vomited in the 20 minutes before being stopped. I have been stopped at two RBT check points and never asked this. Why is this the case in Ireland? Bad training or are they using different equipment?

paul larry

coming originally from the north where driving laws are stricter, and now living in donegal, where the standard of driving is horrendous,i think that L-drivers should be taken off the roads altogether. as for drink driving, the limit should be brought from 35 mg in breath to about 5mg (the 5mg to cover the use of mouthwash etc) i think it should be nil alcohol altogether. its a disgrace! i can go out for a nite and not contemplate drinking, if i have the car,. so why cant others?!

Carawaystick

no one's posted ay links to how much safer the roads would be if a lower limit was introduced.
if a limit of 50 mg per 100ml of blood was introduced, how much safer would the roads be?
how many drivers who would have thought themselves under the limit would be prosecuted and put off the road?

how much safer would the roads be if a limit of 10mg per 100ml blood was introduced?
how many drivers who would have thought themselves under the limit would be put off the road?
What cost to the economy would the collapse in alcohol /fuel excise take and/or severe reduction in people being able to be part of Ireland's flexible workforce (tm) would happen?

Unless people have some real answers to the cost and the benefit of any reduction in people's rights, they should be laughed out of town.

There seems to be a complete lack of evidence based legislating with regard to the laws relating to drugs in Ireland.
How many people still drive while over the 80 mg/100ml limit?
What percentage of these people are caught?
How much public disorder was caused by people who purchased drinks between 10 and 11pm?
If a person took a small amount of magic mushrooms, lots of beer and some cannabis jumped out a window to his death, what evidence shows that the mushrooms were the cause of his suicide?


To reply to an earlier topic: if something dangerous is hard to measure, we should not abandon any efforts to prevent the danger. If some of the money the state spends unsuccessfully prosecuting suspected drink driving cases was spent instead on research into catching and preventing fatigued driving, maybe an objective testing scheme could be introduced.

BrianD

Carawaystick wrote: »

no one's posted ay links to how much safer the roads would be if a lower limit was introduced.
if a limit of 50 mg per 100ml of blood was introduced, how much safer would the roads be?
how many drivers who would have thought themselves under the limit would be prosecuted and put off the road?

how much safer would the roads be if a limit of 10mg per 100ml blood was introduced?
how many drivers who would have thought themselves under the limit would be put off the road?
What cost to the economy would the collapse in alcohol /fuel excise take and/or severe reduction in people being able to be part of Ireland's flexible workforce (tm) would happen?

Unless people have some real answers to the cost and the benefit of any reduction in people's rights, they should be laughed out of town.

There seems to be a complete lack of evidence based legislating with regard to the laws relating to drugs in Ireland.
How many people still drive while over the 80 mg/100ml limit?
What percentage of these people are caught?
How much public disorder was caused by people who purchased drinks between 10 and 11pm?
If a person took a small amount of magic mushrooms, lots of beer and some cannabis jumped out a window to his death, what evidence shows that the mushrooms were the cause of his suicide?


To reply to an earlier topic: if something dangerous is hard to measure, we should not abandon any efforts to prevent the danger. If some of the money the state spends unsuccessfully prosecuting suspected drink driving cases was spent instead on research into catching and preventing fatigued driving, maybe an objective testing scheme could be introduced.

I suggest you take a look at the RTA statistics for both this country and elsewhere and the facts speak for themselves. Alcohol is a contributory factor in a substantial number of road deaths in this country and elsewhere.

Not only that it is established medical fact that the consumption of alcohol results in intoxication and impairs judgement. This is no condition to be in when in control of a motor vehicle.

The solution is to set low or zero blood alcohol limits and to have enforcement of those limits. These limits do not infringe on anybody's personal freedoms and quite simply, my right to life, exceeds your right to have two pints or more of alcohol and drive a car.

What cost to the economy would the collapse in alcohol /fuel excise take and/or severe reduction in people being able to be part of Ireland's flexible workforce (tm) would happen?

The cost would be zero - in fact there are economic benefits to a low alcohol levels. The word collapse is over dramatic. People will still have the option of consuming alcohol at home at their own pace, can still get a taxi or car pool to the pub. I'm not sure what you mean by a flexible workforce but I presume most companies would benefit from a reduction in absenteeism and unproductive workers who were out "having the craic" the night before.

I do agree that the issue that there is an issue of how other intoxicating substances are policed. One presumes that because alcohol is legal then its use can be regulated. You can't regulate how much cocaine you can consume before driving as it is a illegal narcotic. I don't know if the Garda have any way of testing anybody they suspect to be stoned or otherwise other than arrest on suspicion of the fact.

In regard to somebody jumping out of a window while under the influence of magic mushrooms and alcohol, an autopsy would establish what drugs legal or otherwise were in the bloodstream.

faceman

As i said in my earlier post, you can introduce a zero tolerance all you want, but it means feck all in the scheme of things if there are no additional garda checks.

This zero tolerance talk is ultimately nonsense propaganda. If the government really cared about road safety there would be more gardai available to do checkpoints as opposed to fluffy talk about zero tolerance.

Fear of being caught as opposed to fear of causing an accident is what prevents most people getting into a car after drinking.

anotherlostie

In terms of alcohol's role in road deaths, is there documentary evidence that it is people under the limit (but not at zero) that are causing accidents/ fatalities? Any time I am home and see the local paper, the alcohol levels are generally way in excess of the blood alcohol limit. And these are the people caught, not causing accidents.

SeanW

Carawaystick wrote: »

Unless people have some real answers to the cost and the benefit of any reduction in people's rights, they should be laughed out of town.

QFT!

BrianD wrote: »

Alcohol is a contributory factor in a substantial number of road deaths in this country and elsewhere.

This is a cop out. How many of these accidents are caused by people who've just taken some cough medicine, eaten a certain kind of desert, or had been drinking 12-16 hours earlier?

How many of these accidents are caused by people who are over the current limit? How about crazily (like 3 to 4 times) over the current limit?

The solution is to set low or zero blood alcohol limits and to have enforcement of those limits. These limits do not infringe on anybody's personal freedoms and quite simply, my right to life, exceeds your right to have two pints or more of alcohol and drive a car.

Ok first of all, if somoene is put off the road because they took some cough syrup or had recently eaten a desert that had a liquer sauce or something, I think most reasonable people would conclude that is an infringement of personal freedoms.

Secondly, I don't know how many people could drink two pints and still be under todays limit and AFAIK noone here is arguing that the limit should be set at such a level. Noone is suggesting that anyone should get tanked up and drive home. I'm having a difficult time taking your post(s) seriously.

In regard to somebody jumping out of a window while under the influence of magic mushrooms and alcohol, an autopsy would establish what drugs legal or otherwise were in the bloodstream.

I believe Carawaystick was referring to the case a few years ago where a young man in Dublin IIRC took a small amount of magic mushrooms, a massive quantity of alcohol, and fell down a stairs or jumped out the window or something and died.

After tea and cry-in with his family (Mushrooms killed our BOOOY ) , Minister for Health Mary Harney closed a loophole that previously allowed these plants to be sold in Ireland. But what makes this doubly unbelieveable is that on the PDs website, she actually listed this as an achievement during her time in the Ministry!

I'm sorry, but if someone wants to get zoned out on mushrooms that's none of my damn business but as a citizen these stupid laws are made partially on my behalf.
Anyone who says that this IS my business has no business calling themselves liberal, libertarian or progressive.

Carawaystick's original point was that far too often, eliminating peoples rights or increasing government's power is considered a path to greater good, be it for the environment, national security, health and safety, or whatever yourself on a particular day. Not only is the loss in freedom often needless, but in some cases the greater good requires people be given the freedom to live their lives as they see fit tempered only by the duty to respect the rights of others. Things like the alcohol prohibition of the U.S. in the 1930s (which ONLY drove the alcohol industry from honest business dealers and into the hands of bootleggers and mafiosos), the total handgun ban in the U.K. (gun crime has never been higher there), most moder drugs laws, the financial mess the world is in (American lawmakers and the Federal Reserve encouraged cheap credit and subprime lending which caused the whole mess, yet the answer apparently is for the G20 to impose more byzantine regulations on financial markets and have more government control :eek:)

faceman

SeanW wrote: »

Ok first of all, if somoene is put off the road because they took some cough syrup or had recently eaten a desert that had a liquer sauce or something, I think most reasonable people would conclude that is an infringement of personal freedoms.

Usually cough medicine is prescribed at 10-15ml 3 or 4 times a day. How much of that is alcohol? very little I imagine.

BrianD

SeanW wrote: »

QFT!

This is a cop out. How many of these accidents are caused by people who've just taken some cough medicine, eaten a certain kind of desert, or had been drinking 12-16 hours earlier?

It's not a cop out it's a matter of fact. I said that alcohol consumption is a factor a high perecentage of road traffic incidents. Alcohol was a factor in 36.5% of all fatal crashes in 2003 ... don't know what the stats are in recent years.

How many of these accidents are caused by people who are over the current limit? How about crazily (like 3 to 4 times) over the current limit?

I don't know but it is a medical fact that alcohol is an intoxicant and it's effects begin at low levels. Therefore it makes sense to have a low alcohol blood level that can be measured.

Ok first of all, if somoene is put off the road because they took some cough syrup or had recently eaten a desert that had a liquer sauce or something, I think most reasonable people would conclude that is an infringement of personal freedoms.

Have you ever heard of anybody being put off the road for this reason? You never have because it simply does not happen. The effects of any the substances you mention would not put anyone over the legal limit (unless the desert was swimming in rum). Even if you are unfortunate enough to breathalysed seconds after you gargled your mouthwash in the morning, you would be cleared by a second test. These reasons for failing a breath test by mouthwash etc. are theoretical. they happen in a university science lab and not in reality.

Secondly, I don't know how many people could drink two pints and still be under todays limit and AFAIK noone here is arguing that the limit should be set at such a level. Noone is suggesting that anyone should get tanked up and drive home. I'm having a difficult time taking your post(s) seriously.

I am not really following what your point is here but the fact of the matter is that two pints of beer will impair the judgement, concentration and co-ordination of an average person. This is no condition to be in control of a vehicle. There is no infringement of personal liberty - you can drink what you like just don;t drive a car.

I believe Carawaystick was referring to the case a few years ago where a young man in Dublin IIRC took a small amount of magic mushrooms, a massive quantity of alcohol, and fell down a stairs or jumped out the window or something and died.

After tea and cry-in with his family (Mushrooms killed our BOOOY ) , Minister for Health Mary Harney closed a loophole that previously allowed these plants to be sold in Ireland. But what makes this doubly unbelieveable is that on the PDs website, she actually listed this as an achievement during her time in the Ministry!

I'm sorry, but if someone wants to get zoned out on mushrooms that's none of my damn business but as a citizen these stupid laws are made partially on my behalf.
Anyone who says that this IS my business has no business calling themselves liberal, libertarian or progressive.

Carawaystick's original point was that far too often, eliminating peoples rights or increasing government's power is considered a path to greater good, be it for the environment, national security, health and safety, or whatever yourself on a particular day. Not only is the loss in freedom often needless, but in some cases the greater good requires people be given the freedom to live their lives as they see fit tempered only by the duty to respect the rights of others. Things like the alcohol prohibition of the U.S. in the 1930s (which ONLY drove the alcohol industry from honest business dealers and into the hands of bootleggers and mafiosos), the total handgun ban in the U.K. (gun crime has never been higher there), most moder drugs laws, the financial mess the world is in (American lawmakers and the Federal Reserve encouraged cheap credit and subprime lending which caused the whole mess, yet the answer apparently is for the G20 to impose more byzantine regulations on financial markets and have more government control :eek:)

So be it ... but we are only discussing the drink driving regulations.

Carawaystick

What level of alcohol was the factor recorded.
36% below the legal limit then reduce away,
0.5% below the limit, leave the limit

so what number of accidents are caused by people between the limit and any proposed limit?

Does the 36.5% number include people who had taken a drink and were killed even if not driving?


My point is there should only be evidence based legislation.

If you were stopped at a random breath test after using listerine, you would only get your second test after being arrested and taken to a Garda station. This might be in Harcourt St if you were in Lucan[1]


[1] http://soapboxireland.blogspot.com/2007/11/garda-who-drank-five-beers-before-fatal.html

BrianD

Carawaystick wrote: »

What level of alcohol was the factor recorded.
36% below the legal limit then reduce away,
0.5% below the limit, leave the limit

I really don't understand what you are trying to get at here. A reasonable person knows that the consumption of alcohol means intoxication and a reasonable person knows that driving a car while intoxicated is unacceptable even down to the plain selfish level in that you are likely to damage your motor.

Medical sense has documented the effects of alcohol on the average person and hence the levels that are set in law which are translated for the ordinary man on the street into the number of drinks that you can consume. The average person understands that drinking and driving is not a good idea (based on common sense) and unlikely to do so. Therefore it is more than likely that those caught over the limit or involved in an incident (it's no accident if your drunk) are quite likely to be very drunk.

Yes it will vary per individual depending on their body mass and metabolism but it's all relative. Therefore it is possible for me to have 2 drinks and be over the limit or I could have four drinks in, say 12 hours, eat a good meal and still be under the limit.

so what number of accidents are caused by people between the limit and any proposed limit?

It really doesn't matter. We've already established that for the majority of people once you consume two pints you are 'drunk' even if you like to tell your mates that it takes at least 10 pints.

Does the 36.5% number include people who had taken a drink and were killed even if not driving?

??? My understanding is that it includes all those who were killed (including themselves) as a result of the actions of somebody who was driving under the influence. It may, but I am unsure, include pedestrians and/or cyclists whose condition contributed tp or resulted in their death.

My point is there should only be evidence based legislation.

You are correct and the proposed changes are evidence based. There is a mass of medical and statistical research that backs it up - google it. Plus common sense will tell you that a low or zero limit is appropriate to those who wish to drive. In this country we have a high tolerance of drunken behaviour - having the craic etc. - and we have been overly ambivalent to the legal limits.

If you were stopped at a random breath test after using listerine, you would only get your second test after being arrested and taken to a Garda station ...

Red herring. You need to do a little more reading on this topic. If you gargled listerine and took a breath test immediately it may register you over the limit. The reality is that the alcohol content in your mouth dissapates almost immediately and is not injested into your blood stream. Therefore the effects of mouthwash would be gone by the time you reach your front door.

Carawaystick

you said alcolol was a factor in 36.5% of fatal crashes in 2003

I'm asking what levels of alcohol was involved in these crashes.

Like if most of the people with alcohol had more than the legal limit, then how would reducing the limit solve the issue?

On the other hand, If a large proportion of people had say a BAC level of 10 or even for the zero tolerance people, a blood alcohol level of 2 mg per 100ml of blood were causing fatal accidents, then Obviously reducing the limits should reduce the problem.

there appears to be a lack of facts regarding the danger of and amount of accidents involving and accidents caused by drivers with blood alcohol levels below the legal limit.

Ideally a table showing the bac levels of all alcohol related accidents would show the evidence to convince everyone.


I'm not disputing that drinking small amounts impairs your ability to drive. But at the minute the RSA are stating that driving while tired is AS dangerous as driving over the drink driving limit. As far as I can see there is very little enforcement of this dangerous activity, outside of drivers who are obliged to use Tachographs.

If we introduce a much lower BAC limit, then this will make driving while tired much more dangerous, relatively.


I'm not advocating anyone drinking saying if you drink a glass/pint/2pints you'll be under the limit.
I would have concerns about someone who has say 4 pints of beer one day not being able to tell when the next day it is
(a) legal to drive or
(b) safe to drive


You have provided no links to back up your argument to change the law, You have advocated a zero BAC limit.

I am asking for a link(or links) to the evidence to show that the cost of enforcing a lower limit versus the benefit of a lower limit would be money well spent.
As against less money spent on a measure that would give more safety.

Would your statement about listerine still stand with a zero limit? Maybe you could provide a link or two, so I could do a little more reading on that topic

SeanW

BrianD wrote: »

It really doesn't matter.

It does matter. You are being asked some important questions, and face some serious points: like how many road accidents/deaths/€€€s in damage will be averted by the reduction/elimination of blood alcohol limits? It does matter. Instead of general platitudes like "there is no "safe" limit" people have a right to expect proper evidence based estimations of exactly what good the proposed changes will have.

You have also advocated a zero limit, which would mean people who took cough syrup, certain kinds of desert, or had been on a boozing session that had ended 12-16 hours earlier, or at the most generous, had a glass of wine with a meal, would be put off the road for 2 years, since in all cases the driver will have trace amounts of alcohol in their system.

Noone is suggesting that you should drive after getting just a little tanked up on two pints of beer, which is the red herring you pulled out earlier, and there's a massive difference (in the normal course) between a zero limit, and a two-straight-pints-of-Guinness-down-at-the-pub limit.

Highsider

There should be a zero alcohol approach policy to drinking and driving. If you are caught you should be banned from driving for the rest of your life no question. A lot of the idiots that drink and drive will just have no choice but to stop then.

BrianD

SeanW wrote: »

It does matter. You are being asked some important questions, and face some serious points: like how many road accidents/deaths/€€€s in damage will be averted by the reduction/elimination of blood alcohol limits? It does matter. Instead of general platitudes like "there is no "safe" limit" people have a right to expect proper evidence based estimations of exactly what good the proposed changes will have.

Sean this information is documented. I don't have the time to do a thesis for you on the topic. The fact of the matter is that the law is evidence based on medical and emperical evidence. In fact what you are asking for is "results based" and not "evidence based". We don't apply "evidence based" reasoning to other aspects of the law so why drink driving? We make laws on what is good for the community that we live in. I don't know of any laws that have economic cost benefit analysis built into them. However, the benefit of lower level is very clear. If it is followed and enforced it will remove intoxicated drivers from the roads.

You have also advocated a zero limit, which would mean people who took cough syrup, certain kinds of desert, or had been on a boozing session that had ended 12-16 hours earlier, or at the most generous, had a glass of wine with a meal, would be put off the road for 2 years, since in all cases the driver will have trace amounts of alcohol in their system.

I haven't advocated a zero level but I wouldn't be adverse to it. You keep on going on about the red herring of mouthwash. Please read up about it - RED HERRING!! In any case, we are not moving to a zero level we are moving to a lower limit that will well take care of the cough syrup and mouth wash fans. In regard to the glass of wine - the sensible person wouldn't. A clever person would wait an amout of time for the wine to metabolise through their system before driving.

Noone is suggesting that you should drive after getting just a little tanked up on two pints of beer, which is the red herring you pulled out earlier, and there's a massive difference (in the normal course) between a zero limit, and a two-straight-pints-of-Guinness-down-at-the-pub limit.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. However, if an average person drives soon after consuming two pints of beer then their ability to drive is impaired. So it's not really a red herring.