Penalty points to replace ban for driving just over new limit

Run_to_da_hills

Noel Dempsy is about to drop the limit to 50mg and introduce on the spot fines and penalty points for lesser offenses. He will also introduce 20mg limit for PSV and Learner drivers. I wouldn't say country pubs would be too happy with this. A Pint of beer or glass of wine will now push most over the limit.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/penalty-points-to-replace-ban-for-driving-just-over-new-limit-1918350.html

Zube

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Noel Dempsy is about to drop the limit to 50mg and introduce on the spot fines and penalty points for lesser offenses.

For once, I have to say that this sounds quite reasonable.

I still wish they'd concentrate on catching the people who drive when wildly over the existing limit, and I'm afraid that they may use stats from "morning after" and afternoon checkpoints catching 50-80 drivers to show that they are doing something, but if they are to reduce limits, this seems like a good approach.

efb

Country pubs wouldn't be happy with a guy having one pint.

A local barman drops his regulars home after closing, thats thinking outside the box, not challenging road safety measures.

chiefwiggum

cant argue with it..i think its a good thing but not enough gardai to inforce it im afraid..i still think the limit should be zero though and then theres no doubt for people whether theyre just over or just under so they know that if i drink even one im over the limit..

leeroybrown

I don't see the point to 'zero' limits. If you want to prevent people from drinking and driving just set a suitably low limit that they can't just have a pint and hop in the car, and then enforce it. Don't set an arbitrarily low limit where someone can be prosecuted for unknowingly having a tiny amount of alcohol in their system.

Overall what they're doing makes sense, even if it's taking too long to implement due to the rural lobby.

chiefwiggum

how do you get a tiny amount of alcohol in your system without knowing it?tiny amounts that are found in some foodstuffs will come accross as just that but it will be clear if theyve had a pint..i do think zero limits would work here at the moment as irish ppl just cant help themselves.isee it here where i live no one wants to go out unless they can drink and no one will take responsability to drive .if i cant drink then im not going out...its an irish thing...good to see the subject tackled though

samsamson

He needs to grow a pair and drop it to 0mg.

Allowing any amount of drinking and driving just blurs the message.

"Save lives, don't drink and drive - unless your drinking this exact quantity, then you're probably okay... but seriously, don't drink and drive."

Absurdum

chiefwiggum wrote: »

how do you get a tiny amount of alcohol in your system without knowing it?tiny amounts that are found in some foodstuffs will come accross as just that but it will be clear if theyve had a pint..i do think zero limits would work here at the moment as irish ppl just cant help themselves.isee it here where i live no one wants to go out unless they can drink and no one will take responsability to drive .if i cant drink then im not going out...its an irish thing...good to see the subject tackled though

How many people are killed or injured by a slice of Bailey's cheesecake every year?

chiefwiggum

depends on how many slices

Absurdum

chiefwiggum wrote: »

depends on how many slices

well, one would be enough to put you over the zero alcohol limit

leeroybrown

chiefwiggum wrote: »

how do you get a tiny amount of alcohol in your system without knowing it?tiny amounts that are found in some foodstuffs will come accross as just that but it will be clear if theyve had a pint..i do think zero limits would work here at the moment as irish ppl just cant help themselves.isee it here where i live no one wants to go out unless they can drink and no one will take responsability to drive .if i cant drink then im not going out...its an irish thing...good to see the subject tackled though

You're missing my point. Setting a 'zero' limit would catch exactly those people who don't realise that there was residual alcohol in a sauce or a tiny bit of a liqueur in a dessert they they were given. A zero limit really ends up targeting those who don't know that they've got some alcohol in their body not those who deliberately drink and drive.

bladespin

The current limit seems to be very loosely policed, can't see what a new limit is going to achieve bar worrying a few people.

robtri

Yeah no complaints.. on dropping the limit....

have to say though...zero limit is not practical in the real world..

samsamson

On second thoughts I'd welcome a drop to 0.2 mg given the justified worries about deserts with alcohol in them etc which leeroybrown just raised.

But if our current limits were enforced heavily enough we'd probably be alright anyway.

deman

0 per cent would be ridiculous and would cost the state money. They had 0 per cent in Sweden but had to increase it again as too many people were caught for taking mouthwash.

Absurdum

Absurdum wrote: »

How many people are killed or injured by a slice of Bailey's cheesecake every year?

The answer I would like to know is how many people are killed or injured by people who have had 2 or 3 pints( I'm not supporting drinking and driving but I would love to see figures for this). I would say no more than by people after a slice of Bailey's cheese cake. So imo there is no point in reducing it further. They need to catch the people who are driving completely drunk who are the ones causing crashes not trying to catch people hovering around the limit. Reducing the limit further would just be a strain on already limited resources.

rebel.ranter

The real issue here is not what the limit is, it's enforcement. If the law is not enforced properly then it is just a waste of time. I don't believe that those that get tested showing betwen 50-80 are the ones that are a danger to society. The danger generally comes from those lunatics who don't care what the limit is, these are the drivers that need to be targetted the most. The 80 -> 50 reduction is more about technicalities than life saving.

A zero limit would be ridiculous, even mouthwash has alcohol in it. With a zero limit a Garda going about his duties could potentially cause a motorist great stress & waste time unnecessarily if they prove to be over the zero limit just because they rinsed their mouth out with mouthwash before they left the house! This would be especially the case with "morning after" testing. Yes I know the motorist would be absolved eventualy but not after a whole heap of stress, delay & embarrasment.

Max Power1

great idea IMO, i'd love to see a drop to .5mg or something, any alcohol is too much when driving tbh

Gurgle

Show me statistics on the number of accidents caused by people with blood alcohol between 50 and 80.
Until these are produced, the lazy incompetent fùckers can go to hell and I'll have my one pint on the occasional sunday we go for a carvery in the local hotel.

Marlow

samsamson wrote: »

He needs to grow a pair and drop it to 0mg.

Allowing any amount of drinking and driving just blurs the message.

"Save lives, don't drink and drive - unless your drinking this exact quantity, then you're probably okay... but seriously, don't drink and drive."

Sweden had a zero limit for a while and had to bring it up to 2mg to allow for blood alcohol, which you always have and for medicine.

So zero limit is gotta get the wrong people !! It's been tried elsewhere.

/M

Gurgle

Shiloh Elegant Rooftop wrote: »

how many people are killed or injured by people who have had 2 or 3 pints

2 pints has you well over the 80mg limit, even if 2 pints does cause accidents (of which I'm skeptical) changing the limit to 50mg won't make 2 pints any illegal-er.

FutureGuy

While I wouldn't set the limit at zero, I would set it at such a level that you wouldn't get caught for using mouthwash, eating baileys cheese cake and drinking a sip of mass wine etc.

However, I would introduce massive penalties for being caught over that limit. They have to be so large that people wouldnt dare try to drink drive.

And I'd also ban those self-breathylizer tests. They are an absolute disgrace, and my opinion, promote drink driving up to the current limit, which is still drink driving.

FutureGuy

Gurgle wrote: »

2 pints has you well over the 80mg limit, even if 2 pints does cause accidents (of which I'm skeptical) changing the limit to 50mg won't make 2 pints any illegal-er.

I have a mate that would be visibly tipsy after 1 pint...is it ok for him to drive? My girldfrined would be falling over after 2 pints...s it it ok for her to drive?

Marlow

FutureGuy wrote: »

I have a mate that would be visibly tipsy after 1 pint...is it ok for him to drive? My girldfrined would be falling over after 2 pints...s it it ok for her to drive?

See, now you switched reason off. Everything has to be done within reason. Oh wait .. most people don't even know what that is here !!!

If you're affected by alcohol, you're well over the limit, no matter how much or little you've been drinking. The 1 pint "limit" is a thumb-rule and you still have to take your body-size and how alcohol affects you into account. There is no universal you can drink this much before reaching the limit.

/M

Gurgle

Gurgle wrote: »

2 pints has you well over the 80mg limit, even if 2 pints does cause accidents (of which I'm skeptical) changing the limit to 50mg won't make 2 pints any illegal-er.

I know I was just using the number of pints to compare with people who would be completely drunk.

turnsoutIwas

FutureGuy wrote: »

And I'd also ban those self-breathylizer tests. They are an absolute disgrace, and my opinion, promote drink driving up to the current limit, which is still drink driving.

Seriously??? You think that it is a bad idea that people are able to check if that are over the limit before they go out and break the law? Would it not just be easier to keep the limit a secret by that logic?

pburns

There's a lotta PC bull on this thread. I never drink-and-drive 'cos if I go out I like to have a few but there's no way one pint would put any reasonably fit person in a state where driving is seriously impaired. If they're gonna have a zero-tolerance attitude towards alcohol they might as well ban those with colds, illness, period pain, headaches, stress...

And just for info, there are oul lads who've been drinking all their lives and have the constitution for it who go down and slobber over a pint or two for an hour and then drive home. I don't see anything wrong with that but no doubt the young, suburban moral majority who make up the majority of boards.ie would be aghast at such anti-social behavior:rolleyes:

I wish our lawmakers would concentrate on enforcing laws already in place instead of constantly introducing new ones to placate the PC brigade and generate positive PR amongst Irish Times readers:mad:...

Ro: maaan!

For people who want a zero limit because "any amount of alcohol is too much", but are willing to accept .02 or the like to account for mouthwash etc. Why is the alcohol in those any more acceptable than the amount of alcohol in the first 7 or 8 mouthfuls of a pint?

I don't disagree that any amount of alcohol impairs you. But in reality, everything impairs you. The other obvious ones being fatigue, talking on mobiles. But anything from listening to music, radio, someone else in the car to completely unavoidable things like it raining outside or there just being something on your mind that you are a bit preoccupied with will impair you to some extent.

Obviously it's very hard to set limits for those kind of things where it's very easy to set an alcohol limit, but imo it's at a reasonable limit atm. And with all the other factors that exist, lowering it any further would be as pointless as banning guns if people had the ability to kill with their minds.


Also, what's this Baily's cheesecake everyone is eating? Sounds delish.

cabrwab

Ro: maaan! wrote: »

Also, what's this Baily's cheesecake everyone is eating? Sounds delish.

It is 10 thumbs up!:D

I don't agree with a zero limit.
But at the moment its actually a bit under a pint is equal to one unit, so technically after a pint your over the limit!!!

I don't drink and drive, i will try not to have a drop pass my lips, no licence= no job.

The penelty's are big at the moment, you get done your off the road, then when you get back on the road your rode by your insurance company, you've gotta go to court too, so court costs etc.

I know a "rural" pub where its packed on a sat night cars outside, 98% of people in there skulling pints, yet after the closing time of 2/3am;) all the cars disappear.
I don't agree with this but this is how rural ireland has operated for years.
But you can't be promoting it as the Vintners Assoc are doing complaining that a drink driving limit is killing the pubs.

chiefwiggum

moel dempsey to ban mouthwash!!!!!:D my missus wont be happy:p

rgunning

I think once again whatever happens, we will have to rely on the Gardai to enforce any rules sensibly.

In some parts of the country, I know people who have been caught 5 times literally falling out of the car at let off, with a charge brought only on the sixth occasion. Likewise, there are plenty of reports of people caught "the morning after". I would be fairly cheesed off if I was caught the morning after, given that I was in good condition to drive (in my opinion, I know that's very subjective), knowing what goes on around the country.

Also, despite the fact that I very, very rarely drive with any alcohol taken, I agree with the sentiment that there is a large element of PC bull about this issue. I think reckless driving (dangerous overtaking, overtaking on medians, etc.) is much more of a problem, but it not policed in any serious way. Drink driving (and speeding) are just easier to police - you have clear numbers which can be monitored and cranked by statisticians and fed out at political rallies. If the gardai focussed more on reckless driving (and we are getting to levels I've only seen driving in Poland), the Minister can't say at the end of the year, "we are 23.6% less reckless on the roads". It is much easier, however, to say "the average speed/blood alchol level dropped by 23.6%....".

I would really like to see then numbers that related moderate blood alcohol to road accidents and deaths. Then, I have to admit, I would be convinced. As of now, I am not and agree that for a small or neglible gain in safety, the (important, no matter what urban dweelers think) rural pub trade takes a brunt it will not return from.

stevenmu

Gurgle wrote: »

Show me statistics on the number of accidents caused by people with blood alcohol between 50 and 80.
Until these are produced, the lazy incompetent fùckers can go to hell and I'll have my one pint on the occasional sunday we go for a carvery in the local hotel.

According to the article the minister is going to present scientific evidence of the benefits. I'm looking forward to seeing this because I've a hard time believing this will produce any real benefit and isn't just another "look what we did" publicity exercise. (but I'll be happy to be shown wrong)

pburns

pburns wrote: »

the young, suburban moral majority who make up the majority of boards.ie would be aghast at such anti-social behavior:rolleyes:

I wont single out boards members in general but there is definitely still a massive difference between the opinions of people from the country and suburban area's on the topic of drink driving. I know where I'm from (rural area) the majority of people complain about not being able to have a few pints and drive home(some drive regardless others wont chance it) where as in city's and large towns the opinion is the exact opposite with people calling for 0 alcohol limits etc.

Also any support for morning breath testing appears to come for city dwellers who don't need to drive to work. I have yet to encounter a person from the country young or old that is not totally against morning breath checks.

FutureGuy

turnsoutIwas wrote: »

Seriously??? You think that it is a bad idea that people are able to check if that are over the limit before they go out and break the law? Would it not just be easier to keep the limit a secret by that logic?

Yes I do because people shouldn't be drink driving in the first place! It's not about breaking the law, its about putting lives at risk.

cabrwab

Shiloh Elegant Rooftop wrote: »

Also any any support for morning breath testing appears to come for city dwellers who don't need to drive to work. I have yet to encounter a person from the country young or old that is not totally against morning breath checks.

I think the morning breath test are crazy, but like that over the limit over the limit!
I understand the rural people not liking it but that said a lot of cute 'whoors' know there way around it, like leaving the car at the end of the long laneway to there house which is a private road.
But it is hard to go for a pint in the country without a car.

TomMc

Shiloh Elegant Rooftop wrote: »

I wont single out boards members in general but there is definitely still a massive difference between the opinions of people from the country and suburban area's on the topic of drink driving. I know where I'm from (rural area) the majority of people complain about not being able to have a few pints and drive home(some drive regardless others wont chance it) where as in city's and large towns the opinion is the exact opposite with people calling for 0 alcohol limits etc.

Also any support for morning breath testing appears to come for city dwellers who don't need to drive to work. I have yet to encounter a person from the country young or old that is not totally against morning breath checks.

I live in the country and am against any amount of drinking and driving. I don't drink at all but still go pubs with friends who do. The argument that one law should apply for country folk and another for urban dwellers is intellectually incoherent. A life is a life and why should a greater element of risk be placed on country folk, because some people think their social lives are so important and the drinking that goes with it. They should grow up and not be so immature, take some personal responsibility for a change. If you want a drink, work away but do not get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. And if you cannot get a lift or a taxi stay at home. But I'd say many of these people have a dependency on alcohol or its the principle part of who they are and go all defensive when something new challenges them. In much the same way when people were up in arms when the liberty of driving on a provisional license unaccompanied was taken away. Irish people in general terms have an irresponsible attitude to drink and drinking compared with continental Europeans, so our laws should take a tougher stance. There should be a nominal limit, not absolute Zero to account for certain anomalies, but so low to get the message through, no amount of drinking and driving is exceptable.

chiefwiggum

the morning after tests are to stop the clowns who roll into bed at 530 am on a monday morning to be up at 7 to drive to work...over the limit ten minutes after leaving the pub or 4 or 5 hours later is STILL over the limit. these country folk,of which i am one,think they are being discriminated against are fools..there are enough taxi's out there to get home but most ppl dont want the hassle of going to collect the car the next day.another solution...car pool with your mates

R.O.R

Aaden Fierce Circus wrote: »

Also any support for morning breath testing appears to come for city dwellers who don't need to drive to work. I have yet to encounter a person from the country young or old that is not totally against morning breath checks.

Hi Aaden Fierce Circus,

I'm from a rural/city area, but a long distance away from my work. Not only do I need my car for work, but I need my licence for my job.

I fully, 100% support random, morning breathtesting. I was quite happy to be stopped at 06.30 on my way to work one Monday morning.

You might think you are ok to drive the morning after because you feel fine, but that's the same excuse that people use when they get behind the wheel after 5 pints.

I'm actually very surprised at how well thought out the new proposals are and hope they are put in to force, and enforced, as soon as possible.

rebel.ranter

FutureGuy wrote: »

And I'd also ban those self-breathylizer tests. They are an absolute disgrace, and my opinion, promote drink driving up to the current limit, which is still drink driving.

That is just a ridiculuous statement! Do you think someone who is responsible enough to go out & buy a self-breathalyser unit is the same fool enough who drive-drives???

The reason the majority of people buy these is to check themselves the next day. They want to make sure they are not breaking the law. They are being responsible, they want to ensure that they have done everything in their power to stay within the law.

With that fuzzy logic you are professing we might as well remove all the 50kmph speed limit signs....sure people should know the speed limit!!!!!


The use of those units, the proper ones (incl Garda issue) that is is not that straight forward, for one you would have to wait 20 minutes to take an accurate reading. Do you honestly think that people irresponsible enough to gamble would get the self-test right, woudl they wait the 20 minutes? Also if the unit is not calibrated then it could give a false result, self-tests are not admissable in court.

An example of 20 minutes complication: If you have had a glass (1/2 pint say) of beer in a bar, supped up the last drop, got into your car & met a checkpoint 30 seconds down the road the Garda would have to wait 20 minutes to perform a valid breathalyser test. Otherwise the reading would give a false high value.

People who buy these do so to protect their livelihood, especially if that livelihood depends of their driving license. If you are to ban something then ban alcohol, ban cars, the test units are not to blame for the deaths!!! In fact if anything they will prevent deaths.:rolleyes:

leeroybrown

rebel.ranter wrote: »

That is just a ridiculuous statement! Do you think someone who is responsible enough to go out & buy a self-breathalyser unit is the same fool enough who drive-drives???

There was actually a thread somewhere on Boards a good while back where a girl said that her boyfriend had bought one of these so he could drink and still drive. I'm not saying that many people do it and I certainly wouldn't advocate banning them but there are some special fools out there...

jape

Does anyone have any statistics or evidence at all, that shows driving with small amounts of alcohol in your system (e.g. between 0.50mg and 0.80mg) actually increases the likelihood of road traffic accidents/fatalities ?

There's a lot of "expert" opinions on here without a shred of evidence to back up their point.

turnsoutIwas

FutureGuy wrote: »

Yes I do because people shouldn't be drink driving in the first place! It's not about breaking the law, its about putting lives at risk.

Surely taking a self-test before getting into a car and deciding weather or not to drive based on the result is the exact opposite of what you are saying. If you pass it you are not drink driving under the current laws.

Would you be outraged if you heard of someone checking one, realising they were over and not driving as a result? Because this does happen. This is what they were designed to do and for the most part is why people buy them.

Back on topic I think the limit is already low enough. I try not to break laws and will obey this one but I think it is more PC ridiculousness from the govt.

jape

FutureGuy wrote: »

Yes I do because people shouldn't be drink driving in the first place! It's not about breaking the law, its about putting lives at risk.

Case in point. You honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about do you? You should be a politician.

bladebrew

what is "over the limit" now, i thought one pint would put you over,but they were saying on the radio that if it is put to 50mg a one drink would be over the limit?!,

i think the difference in attitude between people from rural areas and the city is due to the risk involved,if someone leaves a rural pub at 3am after a heap of pints and drives on county roads home they are more likely to end up in a ditch than hit another car,in a city/town if you go off the road theres plenty off things to crash into to,
the best idea is a courtesy bus from the pub to collect/drop people home,even if they charge 2 euro its well worth it,

jape

bladebrew wrote: »

what is "over the limit" now, i thought one pint would put you over,but they were saying on the radio that if it is put to 50mg a one drink would be over the limit?!,

It's not an exact science, and varies from person to person, varies depending on age, sex, body weight, tolerance to alcohol, amount of food consumed, tiredness, etc.

An 18 year old female who is short, and slim, and has never drank before, could potentially be over the limit after 1 pint.

A 30 year old male who is 6 ft and well built, drinking for the last 10 years would most definitely not be over the limit after 1 pint.

jape

jape wrote: »

It's not an exact science, and varies from person to person, varies depending on age, sex, body weight, tolerance to alcohol, amount of food consumed, tiredness, etc.

It really is impossible to tell. I have seen a friend blow 0 one afternoon(at a checkpoint btw not a home kit). It was about 1 o'clock in the afternoon and we had a very late heavy session the night before and he had just had a pint for the cure. He is small and light and should definitely have been over from the night before never mind the pint he had just drank.

I would have thought that for a average sized male about 1.5 to 2 pints consumed at a normal pace would be about the limit give or take.

blackbox

I am against reducing the limits on the grounds that I would like to see the extra effort/resources put into:

1. seriously combatting high level drink driving - including random checks and targetting.

2. combatting handheld mobile phone use - no excuse for this

3. combatting driving under the influence of psychoactive drugs, both legal and illegal.

4. undiciplined driving - (motorways and roundabouts)

5. ensuring vehicles are roadworthy

6. ensuring drivers are licensed and insured

7. improved driver training

I believe all of the above would improve road safety more than reducing the alcohol limit from 80 to 50 mg/l.

Am I the only one who doesn't care about this? I've never been tested, probably never will, I barely ever have alcohol in my system when driving and it would be fierce unlucky for those two unlikely events to come together.


And I mean the morning after all you PC posters.