Stop resisting lower blood alcohol limit, publicans told

Cookie_Monster

So a lower limit would only equate to 18 lives a year. Thats not that many really. though I suppose there are the huge number of non fatal accindents and unreported collisions to take into account aswell.

I wonder how they come up with that figure too?

indo wrote:

'We are under pressure. Jobs are being lost, pubs are being closed and the rural fabric is closing down'

PRESSURE was growing on publicans last night to stop resisting moves to lower blood alcohol levels for motorists, which could save 18 lives a year.

Transport Minister Noel Dempsey has said that he is prepared to implement a request from the Road Safety Authority (RSA) to reduce the blood alcohol limit from 80mg to 50mg for drink-driving offences.

However, publicans have warned that if such a move is taken it will result in a downturn in industry profits, as well as widespread job losses.

"We are under pressure. Jobs are being lost, pubs are being closed and the rural fabric is closing down. There will be no social outlet if we don't take something in hand," said Vintners Federation of Ireland (VFI) president Val Hanley.

He said rural Ireland had "taken its fair share of legislation" over the last decade, adding that it was time the Government looked at how to protect jobs and facilities there.

But founder of anti-drink-driving group Mothers Against Drink Driving, Gertie Shiels, implored the Government to put lives before jobs.

"It's been proven time and again that alcohol and driving just don't mix -- the only safe level of alcohol for drivers is zero," she said last night.

Mrs Shiels, whose daughter Paula was killed by a drink-driver in 1983, said that the VFI need to prioritise the lives of motorists.

"I understand how devastating it is to lose your job -- coming from a working class background myself I have seen the damage it can do to communities," she said.

"But at the end of the day we are talking about lives here and that is simply more important than profit margins and redundancies."

Enforcement

Spokesman for AA Ireland Conor Faughnan said that while it is clear that Ireland has a major problem with drink-driving, we also have the highest permissible levels of blood alcohol in Europe.

"It's a very complex issue and while I think the main emphasis should be on increasing enforcement, there is an argument for reducing the levels for certain categories of drivers -- perhaps for truck drivers for example."

Meanwhile, Tanaiste Mary Coughlan has failed to respond to claims that one in every five jobs in rural pubs would be axed in the next year as the downturn worsens.

Publicans warned yesterday that up to 5,000 jobs were under threat unless drastic action was taken to slash VAT and commercial rates.

Last night, the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment would not give Ms Coughlan's stance on the concerns expressed by the VFI at a crisis meeting yesterday.

Research by the VFI shows that 81pc of members have suffered a drop in revenue this summer compared to last year, while 50pc say they have let people go over the past year.

Of those surveyed, 54pc said they expected to lay off more staff in the next year while 43pc said they had been forced to reduce opening hours.

EPM

Even if it's one life, it'd be worth it

h3000

EPM wrote: »

Even if it's one life, it'd be worth it

+1

Mena

So long as they don't lock me up and take away my license for swirling some listerine in the morning they can lower it to zero for all I care!

Cookie_Monster

EPM wrote: »

Even if it's one life, it'd be worth it

I hate that saying.

There are many better ways to spend the funds this will require to save more lives, fund hospital beds, education, buy a CT scanner, more gardai to enforce current laws etc etc etc.

Placing more of a burden of 2 or 3 million people for the sake of one life, is it really worth it?

I fully support lowering the limit by the way, just trying to play devil's advocate here.

BobTheBeat

I firmly believe that even if they had an all out ban it wouldnt make a blind bit of difference. People are always going to take that risk. The fact that so many are still being caught these days is testament to that.

I'd love to know where the figure of 18 came out of. Actually, Id be willing to bet the RSA would make an ad out of it and link it to 18 year old male drivers.

Anan1

EPM wrote: »

Even if it's one life, it'd be worth it

Much as I agree with this in principle, there has always been an a trade-off between economic cost and saving life. For example, lost jobs = less tax revenue = less money for hospitals. That said, I don't think the right to drink and drive can ever outweigh the right to life.

manta356

I'm all in favour of lowering the limit,but I dont agree with the calls for a zero limit.How many things would have a trace of alcohol,like mouthwash etc.
As a lifelong pioneer I dont want to lose my licence after having a sherry trifle.Or what about the priest who would celebrate a few masses a day.
Why not have a limit of say 20 or so,which would allow for discrepancies,but would still ensure people who had a proper alcoholic drink shouldn't drive.
Of course this only works if it is enforced properly,I think if the present limit was rigorously enforced,there would be a reduction in accidents.There would also need to be some sort of drug testing introduced
Although the biggest contributor to road deaths is probably speed.
Rant over now:P

Cookie_Monster

Anan1 wrote: »

Much as I agree with this in principle, there has always been an a trade-off between economic cost and saving life. For example, lost jobs = less tax revenue = less money for hospitals. That said, I don't think the right to drink and drive can ever outweigh the right to life.

Thats what I was getting at but worded much much better.

EPM

Anan1 wrote: »

Much as I agree with this in principle, there has always been an a trade-off between economic cost and saving life. For example, lost jobs = less tax revenue = less money for hospitals. That said, I don't think the right to drink and drive can ever outweigh the right to life.

I completely get what you're saying (did my hdip in Health Economics!!!!) but surely you need to take into account the cost of these accidents to the country too. I've heard some scarily high figures reported as the cost of a road fatality (IIRC about the €2m mark but open to correction). Plus costs associated with non fatal injuries and the unreported incidents. I completely understand money can often be used for the better in other areas and the loss in tax revenues due to around 5000 people losing their jobs is a serious concern but is the delta really that big?

The Real B-man

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0825/1224253193383.html

A MENU OF options which could include curfew hours banning late-night driving or restrictions on engine size and speed, are being studied by the Road Safety Authority as part of a “reconfiguration of the driving licence” for young men, according to authority chairman Gay Byrne.

Reconfiguration of the Driving Licence for Young Men only Gaybo? You will get away with that one alrite

I.S.T.

It would be interesting to see statistics on the blood-alcohol levels of drivers involved in fatal and accident road crashes. Does anyone know if they are available?

Cookie_Monster

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It would be interesting to see statistics on the blood-alcohol levels of drivers involved in fatal and accident road crashes. Does anyone know if they are available?

I've heard seen on here several times that they don't release them for fatal accidents anyway but can't confirm

daveharnett

manta356 wrote: »

Although the biggest contributor to road deaths is probably speed.

For the record, I would say that the biggest contributor to road deaths is carelessness.

As for the pubs, if they can't find a way to make a buck without their customers drinking and driving, then I'm sorry but they have no future.

pred racer

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It would be interesting to see statistics on the blood-alcohol levels of drivers involved in fatal and accident road crashes. Does anyone know if they are available?

I'd love to see this too. There was a guy on the radio (last word/right hook?)
who said that nobody who was involved in a fatal accident last year (he might have even said ever, just working from memory here) was between the current and proposed blood alcohol limits.

So for me, enforcement of the current limits would make more sense eg. 22 years driving and ive never been bagged.

Id love to see some scheme where those of us who live in the arsehole of nowhere(where there is more chance of meeting a friendly sheep:) on the way home than another car) can go out for a couple of pints and still drive home but I dont see any way thats workable.

so in short I think that the proposed limits are horsesh!te (and before the pc brigade start, no I dont drink and drive I depend on my licence for my job)

the_syco

Off topic, but

PRESSURE was growing on publicans last night to stop resisting moves to lower blood alcohol levels for motorists, which could save 18 lives a year.

I never got those stats. What? The 18 people who died last year won't die again this ear if you do X, Y and Z?

=-=

On topic, a zero law is stupid, as it'd get you on a lot of alcohol based products, such as mouthwash.

As for lost revenue, simply cut the amount the publicans charge per pint, and they'll get more people buying more.

Padraig Mor

IrishSpeedTraps wrote: »

It would be interesting to see statistics on the blood-alcohol levels of drivers involved in fatal and accident road crashes. Does anyone know if they are available?

This lowering of the limit to 50 is a crock of **** - and I say that as someone who would have no more than half a pint on the very rare occasion I would drink before driving.

While I have nothing in principle against the lowering, the simple fact is that it won't make a blind bit of difference to deaths on the road. The coroner for Donegal (IIRC) has been making as much noise as he can recently that the drunk drivers he gets on his slab are not between 50 and 80 BAC but at multiples of 80. Lowering the lmit to 50 is just a fig leaf to disguise that the current limit is simply not being widely enforced. My experience of rural Ireland (i.e. deep in the country, not Cork city or something Dublin heads!) is that the majority of people driving home from pubs are plastered. They do so because their chances of being caught are so low.

The only people that will be caught with the new level are people driving to work the next morning - not the people having head-on crashes at 2 in the morning.

pred racer

Padraig Mor wrote: »

This lowering of the limit to 50 is a crock of **** - and I say that as someone who would have no more than half a pint on the very rare occasion I would drink before driving.

While I have nothing in principle against the lowering, the simple fact is that it won't make a blind bit of difference to deaths on the road. The coroner for Donegal (IIRC) has been making as much noise as he can recently that the drunk drivers he gets on his slab are not between 50 and 80 BAC but at multiples of 80. Lowering the lmit to 50 is just a fig leaf to disguise that the current limit is simply not being widely enforced. My experience of rural Ireland (i.e. deep in the country, not Cork city or something Dublin heads!) is that the majority of people driving home from pubs are plastered. They do so because their chances of being caught are so low.

The only people that will be caught with the new level are people driving to work the next morning - not the people having head-on crashes at 2 in the morning.

This is what I meant to say.:D

Zube

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Lowering the lmit to 50 is just a fig leaf to disguise that the current limit is simply not being widely enforced.

We have seen a number of times where a change to the law has scared drivers into behaving better, like the adoption of the penalty points system, which had a radical effect on accident statistics. The temptation to make a change to the law, shout about it in the media and hope drivers get a scare is there. Certainly it's much easier than recruiting, training and deploying an effective traffic corps.

Seth Brundle

Noel Dempsey mustn't be listening to his party colleague and Ceann Comhairle John "Expenses" O'Donoghue
O'Donoghue helps pubs battle drink-drive limit

Gurgle

pred racer wrote: »

I'd love to see this too. There was a guy on the radio (last word/right hook?)
who said that nobody who was involved in a fatal accident last year (he might have even said ever, just working from memory here) was between the current and proposed blood alcohol limits.

+1
I don't understand how they can even make such a proposal without stats to back it up.
If 80 -> 50 can be demonstrated to make a difference then fair enough, but this smells like the usual shìt - Don't need to achieve anything, just act like we're trying.

the_syco

Vintners argue that the lowering of the drink-driving limit will prevent motorists from having one pint.

I'll reword that to say the same thing: Vintners argue that drink-driving is okay...

And I wonder how many vinters will say "that's enough", or "will you vae one more", when they goto leave after that one pnt...?

kayos

Let them lower the limit if they want, drink and driving just dont mix for me. The rare time if out for a meal one glass of wine and thats it. If I can no longer have that glass so be it.

But I honestly think they would be better off enforcing the laws that are there right now more often. Its been a long time since I've come across a check point in Galway...in west cork how ever I see a lot more cops on the roads doing speed checks and check points.

If the people who do drink and drive to excess are more likely to get caught than get away with it then I think that would have a bigger effect.

The only problem with dropping the limit is the morning after the night before. Even if the night before was only a few pints getting to work is a risky business the next day.

jimzy

I know lots of old men in my local area that go out almost every other night for a pint or two over the space of a few hours and drive home on a quiet country road. They've been doing this for most of their lives never have and most definitely never will hit or kill anyone in their car as they drive at around 20 mph...

i know this isn't the case for everyone, but for these old guys it's their only social involvement.
It's a really tough situation.

On the other hand - my mate was croatia lately with his gf & on a night out they got stopped on the way home by the cops. They were in a car with some of his gf's family, the guy that was driving was hammered. Cops just fined him and let him home... Now thats really unbelievable.

Padraig Mor

jimzy wrote: »

I know lots of old men in my local area that go out almost every other night for a pint or two over the space of a few hours and drive home on a quiet country road. They've been doing this for most of their lives never have and most definitely never will hit or kill anyone in their car as they drive at around 20 mph....

(1). If they truly have only two pints over a few hours, chances are they will be well under the limit.

(2). If they need to drive at 20 mph after "two" pints, I'd wager they've thrown a few whiskies in there as well. There is absolutely no way you can say that they "definitely never will hit or kill anyone ".

BrianD

manta356 wrote: »

I'm all in favour of lowering the limit,but I dont agree with the calls for a zero limit.How many things would have a trace of alcohol,like mouthwash etc.
As a lifelong pioneer I dont want to lose my licence after having a sherry trifle.Or what about the priest who would celebrate a few masses a day.
Why not have a limit of say 20 or so,which would allow for discrepancies,but would still ensure people who had a proper alcoholic drink shouldn't drive.
Of course this only works if it is enforced properly,I think if the present limit was rigorously enforced,there would be a reduction in accidents.There would also need to be some sort of drug testing introduced
Although the biggest contributor to road deaths is probably speed.
Rant over now:P

Why do people persist with these myths? If there was a zero level there is absolutely no way you would be "put away" for using a mouthwash containing alcohol.

Let's say for arguements sake, your mouthwash managed to trigger the handheld device to a level that you fail a breath test. What happens next? You get brought to the Garda station and undergo a blood alcohol test and you get cleared. This is the worst case scenario.

Stop with the ridiculous myths! There are zero limits in other countries and there aren't prisons full of loyal listerine users.

If you are worried about the priest and his sip of brandy or your sherry trifle well then solution is simple. It's takes the body one hour to absorb a unit of alcohol. Delay your journey!

ChristyCent

There should be a zero tolerance policy on drink driving how many times have you seen on the news 'single car accident kills middle aged man'?

L1011

ChristyCent wrote: »

There should be a zero tolerance policy on drink driving how many times have you seen on the news 'single car accident kills middle aged man'?

Never, that I can think of?

Enforce the current limit first, before fiddling with it. Like most traffic laws its not properly enforced.

Realistically they want to lower it in the hope that the scare factor will make less people risk it - people who would have been well over .08 to begin with! Just like the scare factor of points and random testing...

manta356

If you are worried about the priest and his sip of brandy



Brandy at mass now,what next ?:eek:

ninty9er

The Real B-man wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0825/1224253193383.html




Reconfiguration of the Driving Licence for Young Men only Gaybo? You will get away with that one alrite

See here for how to complain

daveharnett wrote: »

For the record, I would say that the biggest contributor to road deaths is carelessness.

As for the pubs, if they can't find a way to make a buck without their customers drinking and driving, then I'm sorry but they have no future.

+1 on both of those. The business that opens today, and fails to adapt to the market conditions tomorrow, will be uncompetitive and outdated the day after.

Gurgle wrote: »

+1
I don't understand how they can even make such a proposal without stats to back it up.
If 80 -> 50 can be demonstrated to make a difference then fair enough, but this smells like the usual shìt - Don't need to achieve anything, just act like we're trying.

Fatal accidents are only a tiny fraction of the problem.