Drink driving will save the pubs

-Chris-

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0825/vintners.html

It also wants no change in current permissible blood alcohol levels and for employment incentives available to the manufacturing sector to be extended to the hospitality industry.

I think this is a disgrace.

I have pity for some publicans, and don't want to see anyone lose their jobs, but I think bringing the blood alcohol levels into the debate is completely ridiculous.

There are many things they can lobby for to support their industry, there are many changes they can make.

The ability of people to drink alcohol before driving should not be one of the VFI's key revenue streams.


Either our blood alcohol limit is too high, or it's not. Either lowering it will increase road safety, or it won't. As soon as you tie blood alcohol levels to employment preservation rather than road safety you're on a slippery slope...


Any thoughts?

Mitch Connor

agreed - bringing it up as an employment issue is vulgar imo, and something anyone in opposition to their proposals could jump on and absolutely hammer them with.

Jip

I see nowhere here that says that drink driving will save pubs. They're just asking for the current level to remain as it is, even at that you can barely have a pint without being over the limit, they're asking to keep the status quo.

Maybe a change to thread title is required.

bladebrew

christ i misread that article!! i thought they wanted to increase the limit!!,the goverment were talking about dropping it alright but i dont think they have any immediate plans to,

the best idea i think they have come up with to help rural pubs is a shuttle bus service so someone pays €2 and the bus brings people to and from the pub,

Jip

bladebrew wrote: »

and they want to raise the limit,

Again, where do they say this ?

Cookie_Monster

Jip wrote: »

I see nowhere here that says that drink driving will save pubs.
Maybe a change to thread title is required.

+1

bladebrew wrote:

and they want to raise the limit

Where does it say that?

Mr Benevolent

Yup, they don't want to raise the limit.

tricky D

Here's a radical idea for saving pubs. Remove the VFI cartel and lower prices with competition.

Cookie_Monster

tricky D wrote: »

Here's a radical idea for saving pubs. Remove the VFI cartel and lower prices with competition.

:rolleyes:

You and your common sense
:P

nialler

Wouldn't the vintner be better served in Rural areas like has been said before get a local bus operator to pick up and drop home people to his pub and say for €10 per person the pub pays half and the punter pays half, the pub owner will only lose the cost of 1 pint where the punter will probably have 5 or 6 pints safe in the knowledge that he/she's been dropped home to their door whereas the alternative is that there is no transport available, the punter doesn't go out or goes to their local spar/supervalue and picks up a few bevvies and sits in. The answer to me is obvious but I was never good at business.

I wouldnt agree with lowering the limit as its already low enough in my opinion. Especially with driving the next day in mind.

But I dont think lowering it would effect the pubs that much. I know in my local a lot of the people who drink there would drive home and they would be drinking a lot more than one pint so it wouldnt matter to them(I don't btw before someone decides to attack me), although I know a few auld fellas who would go in every evening and have a pint or two so I suppose it would effect them if it was lowered.

BeardyGit

nialler wrote: »

Wouldn't the vintner be better served in Rural areas like has been said before get a local bus operator to pick up and drop home people to his pub and say for €10 per person the pub pays half and the punter pays half, the pub owner will only lose the cost of 1 pint where the punter will probably have 5 or 6 pints safe in the knowledge that he/she's been dropped home to their door whereas the alternative is that there is no transport available, the punter doesn't go out or goes to their local spar/supervalue and picks up a few bevvies and sits in. The answer to me is obvious but I was never good at business.

One of my locals up in Wicklow have a great service on the go and it works wonders to keep them busy enough all year 'round. You can call them to send a lad up to collect us in a 7 seater to bring us straight to the pub, and at the end of the night, he'll drop us home again. Cost? Nothing to the punter. Does it work? You bet it does.

cashmni1

I think they want it to remain status quo.
I have to agree with them this time. I think the limit is low enough in this country. (or high enough)
There WILL be an affect on certain rural pubs if the limit is lowered. I know plenty of old guys that stop in a local have their after work pint and drive. This would then stop and the old guys would end up either off the road or drinking the foxy water at home.
The "bringing it in line with Europe" statement is not in line with Ireland. As already said, using employment as a bargaining chip is just wrong, but it seems that they have no other choice.
The RSA still haven't produced any evidence that lowering the blood alcohol limit will save lives, or, stop road accidents, from the current limit that is.
The stats that are released to Joe Bloggs about alcohol related accidents seem a bit manufactured to me. They never state whether a fatal accident that involved alcohol, was just over the limit, or indeed was completely intoxicated. I understand and realize that there are families to be considered, so they are hardly going to say that sort of stuff on the news. But, they should record the amount and build some true facts about alcohol related road accidents.
If they had this undeniable proof, then maybe yes, reduce the limit. But until then, sorry, I think we already have enough random checkpoints and breathe testing.
To be honest, I don't know anyone who drinks and drives any more, but that’s not the point.
BTW, I don't think they have random checkpoints in the mornings anywhere else do they?

alias no.9

The thread title is a little bit misleading but I 'd agree with Chris when he says

-Chris- wrote: »

As soon as you tie blood alcohol levels to employment preservation rather than road safety you're on a slippery slope...

but on the more substantive point

-Chris- wrote: »

Either our blood alcohol limit is too high, or it's not. Either lowering it will increase road safety, or it won't.

I'd argue that it's not so black or white. When we were in a position that you could pass a breath test after two pints (the message used to be just two will do as opposed to never, ever, drink and drive), this was a correct assertion. Now that just one pint could put you over the limit, those who persist in driving under the influence, do so in the knowledge that they will be over the limit if they are bagged.
Until the detection levels are increased, there's little or no point in changing the permissable level. The available evidence does not appear to point to drivers between 50 and 80mg/ml as being the cause of the fatalities we see week in week out on our roads. The County Coroner (whos name escapes me at the moment) in Donegal, a blackspot for fatalities, has said as much on the record.
People who currently would never get in a car after drinking will now be afraid to have a glass of wine with their dinner if they have to drive the next morning, even if they will have a good nights sleep. Meanwhile, people who aren't deterred by the 80mg/ml limit, will not be deterred by the 50mg/ml limit because it's irrelevant until they see a Garda Checkpoint or they crash. They can't remember the last Garda Checkpoint they saw, with or without drink taken, and they'll never crash because they're better drivers than everyone else. Changing the limit right now would purely be an exercise in optics. Until we have enforcement, enforcement and more enforcement, those drivers who remain to be convinced by the impairment caused by alcohol to a drivers judgement will not change their ways.